From: Joerg Heinicke
> Because of this upcomming naming discussion I guess the vote
> started to
> early.
Unfortunatly you are right. After the "balkanization" discussion I
thought that the people here are satisfied with Marc's/Sylvain's
proposal. In the meantime I'm really tired of waiting for the 2.1
release (yes, I want to use it in production --> I don't have problems
with CVS versions but many customers have!) ... therefore my try with
the vote ...
This was also the reason why I voted +0. Those changes would have been
possible for a later release and the migration would have been very
easy.
> First all alternatives should be known. But the
> additions Stephan
> provided make sense (see inline).
>
> Stephan Michels wrote:
>
> >> [A] The "Cocoon Advanced Control Flow" provides a
> controller that is
> >> linked into the sitemap (as **child element** of <map:sitemap
> >>.../>:
> >>
> >> <map:flow type="[yourEngine]">
> >> [configuration]
> >> </map:flow>
> >>
> >> This reflects that the flow is not a *usual* sitemap
> resource but
> >> something else.
> >
> >
> > The point, which irritates me, is that you don't have a
> identifier to
> > address the script/whatever.
> >
> > So my favorite choise will be
> >
> > <map:flows>
> > <map:flow name="js" type="javascript">
> > <script src="flow/PetStoreImpl.js"/>
> > <script src="flow/petstore.js"/>
> > </map:flow>
> > <map:flow name="java" type="atct" class="org.apache.cocoon...."/>
> > <map:flow name="fsm" type="fsm" src="descriptors/fsm.xml"/>
> > </map:flows>
> >
> > So this will be coherent with the other objects.
>
> Which leads the sentence "This reflects that the flow is not
> a *usual*
> sitemap resource but something else." ad absurdum :)
I'm -0 on this changes to my proposal (see J�rg's argument)
>
> >> [B] The controller is called by:
> >>
> >> <map:call flow="[yourFlow]">
> >> <map:parameter name="x" value="y"/>
> >> </map:call>
> >
> >
> > Seems fine, an alternative will be
> >
> > <map:initiate flow="js" call="[Javascript function]">
> <map:parameter
> > name="x" value="y"/> </map:initiate>
> >
> > <map:initiate type="java" call="[Java method]"> <map:parameter
> > name="x" value="y"/> </map:call>
> >
> > <map:initiate type="fsm" call="[Name of state]"> <map:parameter
> > name="x" value="y"/> </map:initiate>
> >
> > I like the combination of initiate/continue
>
> initiate/continue is ok, but what about keeping syntax of all sitemap
> objects using @type and @src:
>
> <map:initiate type="java" src="[Java method]"/>
>
> Or is it to far away from the sense or even misleading?
>
> >> [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 ;-)
> > I guess <map:continue continuation="{1}"/> is bad.
> >
> > <map:continue src="{1}"/>
> > or
> > <map:continue id="{1}"/>
>
> Same like above, so I prefer @src.
>
> >> [D] All flow interpreters[3] are Avalon components and declared
> >> in the cocoon.xonf:
> >>
> >> <flow-engine default="[yourController]" logger="[yourLogger]">
> >> ...
> >> </flow-engine>
> >
> >
> > +1, except the name, see next.
> >
> >
> >> [E] Changes in the current Javascript implementation:
> >> - rename "Interpreter" to "FlowEngine",
> >
> >
> > Again, to be coherent my favorite is
> > <flow-processor> like <xslt-processor> and <xpath-processor>, or
> > treeprocessor.
>
> flow-engine vs. flow-processor - I don't know ...
>
> >> - rename "WebContinuation" to "FlowState", and accordingly
> >> "WebContinuationManager" to "FlowStateManager".
>
> Here I prefer the States for the reasons Marc provided, so +1 here.
>
> > Yes, the Continuation represents a state, but to make a clear
> > difference as a new concept, I think 'Continuation' is
> accurate. But
> > 'Web..'?!
> >
> > - rename "WebContinuation" to "Continuation", and accordingly
> > "WebContinuationManager" to "ContinuationManager".
>
> If not states, but continuations at least remove 'Web' => +1
>
> Conal Tuohy wrote:
> > What about <map:continue from="..."/>
>
> Hmm, I don't really like it. We don't need an English sentence :)
>
> Otherwise you could also change to <map:generate from="foo.xml"/>,
> <map:transform with="bar.xsl"/> and <map:serialize as="html"/>. @type
> and @src is a good abstraction IMO.
>
> Joerg
>
