cocoon-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sergeant <m...@sergeant.org>
Subject Re: draft final version of the esql namespace
Date Wed, 08 Nov 2000 15:08:30 GMT
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Marco Pauck wrote:

> > Right, its a content vs presentation thing sort of... You want to present
> > the fact that there are no rows - put it in your stylesheet. At least
> > thats how I see it... :-)
> 
> OK, but I disagree... :-)
> It can also be a logic issue because I may want to e.g. change the interaction
> workflow with the user by providing other links to choose from.

Having seen your example, I see both sides now :)

Its a fine line between bloating the esql: namespace. For example, your
example could trivially be coded in an esqlu (esql-utils) namespace. It
depends what the aim is - to provide everything you could want to do with
esql, or to provide a framework with which to build those
things... Donald?

> > > > Why was the design decision made to have different elements for query
> > > > and update? Why not simply have something like 'results' and 'no-results'
> > > > for everything, i.e. queries, updates, inserts, and - oh, I forgot -
> > > > deletes?
> > >
> > > hopefully i've made it clear. basically, it comes down to this - the esql
> > > logicsheet has no idea what kind of SQL it's executing when it sends it to
> > > the server - it could be a select, an insert, an update, a delete, a
> > > stored procedure, a non-standard SQL operation, whatever. it just knows
> > > that it's supposed to send SQL to the server and instantiate the proper
> > > results element depending on the results of the operation. sound
> > > reasonable?
> > 
> > I think thats the point being made here - why do we need two different
> > ways of executing SQL - one for query operations and one for edit
> > operations?
> 
> That wasn't what I was suggesting.
> Instead, to keep the currently available feature to easily distinguish
> between the two cases "rows selected/affected" and "no rows selected/affected".

I know - originally Donald was proposing two separate methods for invoking
queries vs DML SQL. So I'm on your side in a way :-)

-- 
<Matt/>

    /||    ** Director and CTO **
   //||    **  AxKit.com Ltd   **  ** XML Application Serving **
  // ||    ** http://axkit.org **  ** XSLT, XPathScript, XSP  **
 // \\| // **     Personal Web Site: http://sergeant.org/     **
     \\//
     //\\
    //  \\


Mime
View raw message