> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephan Michels
>
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Reinhard P�tz wrote:
>
> >
> > From: Stephan Michels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > A: V1
> >
> > Why do you want implementation details in the element: <map:flows>
> > ...
> > <map:flow name="java" type="atct" class="org.apache.cocoon...."/>
> > <map:flow name="fsm" type="fsm" src="descriptors/fsm.xml"/>
> > ---
> > </map:flows>
> >
> > I don't think that class or src should be attributes of
> <map:flow/>.
> > It should go into the configuration, shouldn't it?
>
> I you think of Configuration class, you can do both. But you
> are right in the case of validation(which is in the current
> case terrible difficult), the second option is better.
>
> I change my A: V1 to A: V2, okay?
>
> > > B: V2
> > > C: V1 with flow instead of type
> >
> > to use the flow attribute to determine which implementation is used
> > doesn't make really sense to me. Everywhere else the type
> attribute is
> > used. I would use the flow attribute to give the flow
> processor a hint
>
> Which implementation you use is defined in <map:flow>
>
> <map:initiate> -> select flow -> <map:flow> \\
> -> select implementation -> <flow-processor>
>
> Ohh moment, what makes the flow component different from
> other sitemap components? Nothing!
>From a technical POV you are completly right but I share Stefano's idea
that we should show our users that the flow component is different from
the sitemap components. So I'm -1 on this.
>
> <map:components>
> <map:flow name="petshop" class=
> "org.apache.cocoon.components.flow.javascript.JavaScriptInterpreter">
> <reload-scripts>true</reload-scripts>
> <check-time>4000</check-time>
> <script src="flow/PetStoreImpl.js"/>
> <script src="flow/petstore.js"/>
> </map:flow>
> <map:components>
... so I like the new section <map:flows>...</map:flows> more. See the
reasons above.
And I think it is FS to determine the implementation
(org.apache.cocoon.components.flow.javascript.JavaScriptInterpreter) at
sitemap level.
Do you have a usecase which makes this necessary? I wrote a lot of JS
flow scripts and haven't had a need for this yet.
<map:flows>
> <map:flow name="petshop" class=
> "org.apache.cocoon.components.flow.javascript.JavaScriptInterpreter">
> <reload-scripts>true</reload-scripts>
> <check-time>4000</check-time>
> <script src="flow/PetStoreImpl.js"/>
> <script src="flow/petstore.js"/>
> </map:flow>
</map:flows>
>
> <map:initiate type="petshop" start="addItem"/>
> <map:continue type="petshop" id="{1}"/>
>
> Hey, I love this :)
I think this obscures that a flow processor/engine is used. Of course
this makes only sense in connection with <map:flows>...</map:flows>.
Therefore I like following syntax more.
<map:initiate flow="addItem" type="petshop" />
<map:continue flow="{1}" type="petshop" />
Would you be fine with this?
Cheers,
Reinhard
