cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <>
Subject Re: pipelineComponent scope troubles
Date Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:57:28 GMT
Grzegorz Kossakowski skrev:
> Daniel Fagerstrom pisze:
>> Grzegorz Kossakowski skrev:
>>> Giacomo Pati pisze:
>> So, getting to the point, what I propose is that you describe in a
>> semiformal way what is supposed to be true about stack and other state
>> before enetering the scope, during the scope and when leaving it. This
>> will be helpful both for you and for the rest of us for being able to
>> see if your approach and code is correct.
> Yep, I agree. I've done such analysis to some extent when proposing[1] pipelineComponent
scope and
> then discussing details in that thread.

I reread the thread and the only message I found that go into more 
details about the implementation is But you 
while you discuss some details about how you don't describe what. So I 
would like to have an explicit description of the state before and after 
the context change.

>> Now, the above can seem like a rather indirect and inneficient way to
>> find the problem behind the bug that Giacomo found. For code in general
>> it isn't the way to go. But for things like building execution machines
>> for languages (as in the current case) my experience strongly suggest
>> that what I propose is the most efficient way to go.
> I put really a lot of effort in order to clarify things and provide overall picture of
current state
> of our code in my RT e-mail. What I found disheartening was the fact that no Cocoon developer
> bothered to say at last: "Grzegorz, I don't understand any paragraph of your e-mail,
you just
> screwed it up". Then I wouldn't be surprised by people surprised by current implementation.

You cannot possibly expect that the whole community would have the time 
or interest to follow your sometimes painful way though all the 
complicated details of Cocoon internals.

> Sorry for little offending words but I'm really tired repeating the same thing around
ten times and
> being blamed in the end.

In general, if one repeat the same thing ten times whithout anyone 
understanding it, it just might be relevant feedback on ones 
presentation style ;)

> I hope that we can summarize current situation, cut new release candidate of C2.2 and
return back to
> whiteboard for a while.

Anyway, my propsal that you give an explicit description about the 
assumed state before and after the context change, is a serious 
proposal. If you have described it, please give me a link. Otherwise it 
would be really helpfull if you write it down.


View raw message