What do you think of the CopySourceAction I've added (see [1])? Doing the equivalent of your saveToFile.flow should be pretty trivial, no?
It's not a bad idea, except that I still will need to use flowscript to fire off a .vbs script that prints the document....or need to write a custom action to do that, which I would rather not do at the moment, deadlines looming and all that.
Why do you need flowscript to fire a vb script? It should be possible to do it in Java, and the action code should not be far from a cut'n paste of the flowscript code.
Congrats for your project. But I really think this unspecified behaviour you're using is not the good way to go. So let's keep it as is in the upcoming 2.1.3 and forbid it in 2.1.4.
Why forbid it? I see no reason to elminate such a useful feature, unspecified or otherwise.
There's been a discussion about this, and we agreed on the fact that he semantics of <map:call function> and <map:call> continuation implied that it _must_ redirect somewhere using sendPage, sendPageAndWait or redirectTo.
The semantics you would like is the one of an action. I proposed to add a "flowscript action" that would share function and global variable scopes with the flowscript but have the appropriate contract of returning a Map of values to the sitemap.
So the flowscript call semantics will be strengthened in the 2.1.4 to avoid abuses of this unspecified behaviour. And the fact that you already rely on this behaviour shows that we must correct things quickly.
If it was only me, we would forbid it ASAP for the 2.1.3 release. What do others think?
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects } Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
