Marc Portier wrote:
> The following might seem like nagging but I do share Sylvain's
> eagerness to get names really right, so I'm wide open for other
> alternatives and views...
I don't have a vote either :-) but I agree - names are a very important detail, so
I'll stick my nose in...
> >> [C] A state of the controller is called by:
> >>
> >> <map:call state="">
> >> <map:parameter name="x" value="y"/>
> >> </map:call>
> >
> >
> > We don't call states in this sense. We continue
> > a continuation ;-)
>
> actually I think we continue with the 'use-case'
>
> or we continue the 'interaction'
>
> > I guess <map:continue continuation="{1}"/> is bad.
> >
> > <map:continue src="{1}"/>
> > or
> > <map:continue id="{1}"/>
> >
>
> Still <map:continue state-id=".." /> might make sense as well?
What about <map:continue from="..."/>
I agree with your analysis completely ... personally I find map:continue with
attribute of id or source or state sounds jarring - it sounds like you would be
continuing a state, or continuing an id, which is wrong, as you say. It doesn't read
smoothly in the sense of a regular English sentence, whereas "continue from ..." reads
very naturally.
The point is that you continue a FLOW (a use-case as you say), and that you continue
the flow FROM a particular point which must be identified by this attribute.
"Continue" is the active (verb form) word which identifies the activity (noun form
would be continuation). "From" is a word that identifies the role that the
rhino-continuation or FSM-state plays in this activity, without having to give it some
overly-specific name (state, continuation, location, point, etc)
My 2c
Con
