Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of joerg.heinicke@gmx.de
 designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <49C185B6.9000908@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:37:26 +0100
From: Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heinicke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [C3] Sitemap implemented in Scala
References: <49AF0FB6.1090103@tuffmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49AF0FB6.1090103@tuffmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 05.03.2009 00:33, Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:

> Now I'll give a few words of comments why I find my implementation easier to follow.
> First of all, sitemap processing is divided into a few distinct stages:
>   1. Sitemap parsing
>   2. Sitemap reduction
>   3. Sitemap invocation
>      3.1 Actions execution
>      3.2 Pipeline building
>      3.3 Pipeline execution
>      3.4 Catching possible exception
>   4. If exception catched, reduction of handle errors node
>   5. Handling exception with reduction result
> 
> What's more, for most of the time code is based on immutable structures which is the biggest advantage. What I found
> hard with current implementation hard is InvocationImpl passed around that quite a lot of state. If you combine it with
> InvocationResult switches (cases) that every node has to return in its invoke() method the result isn't really
> appealing. This sort of resembles mistakes from C2.x where big, mutable objects were passed around leading to
> unmaintainable code.
> 
> I'm interested in hearing your opinions on that subject. I know that's rather hard to judge rather big piece of code in
> unfamiliar language but I'm sure you can easily get some overall feeling about my implementation and ideas behind it.

I don't have the time to actually look into your implementation. I'm 
just wondering if all the insight views couldn't be used to improve the 
Java implementation rather than starting something in a different language.

Joerg