Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> On 6/20/02 1:06 AM, "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> It may actually be better if we have a separate section in the sitemap for
> such scripts that implement business logic. This would help in separating
> what is business logic and what are flow scripts.
>
> In addition, it could also help in runtime optimizations. For example, the
> Rhino JavaScript engine has two modes of execution, an interpreted one and a
> compiled one. In the compiled mode, the JavaScript scripts are compiled to
> Java bytecodes, so they execute at the same speed as normal Java code. In
> the interpreted mode, an internal set of bytecodes are used, whose execution
> is evidently slower than the compiled mode. The modified Rhino version with
> continuations support works only in interpreted mode (it's actually
> impossible to have it work in the compiled mode, but this is a different
> story).
>
> So I think it makes sense to have a special section in the sitemap for
> including scripts which act as business logic. With JavaScript scripts for
> example, we can have these running in compiled mode, while flow scripts,
> which are usually smaller, execute in interpreted mode. From a functional
> point of view however, these scripts should be visible to the flow scripts.
>
> <map:applications>
> <map:application name="shopping-cart">
> <map:script src="cart.js" language="JavaScript"/>
> </map:application>
>
> <map:application name="calculator">
> <map:script src="calc.py" language="Python"/>
> </map:application>
> </map:application>
:-)
> We need to figure out how flow scripts are associated with the business
> logic scripts, and whether it makes sense to have the same flow script
> associated with multiple business logic scripts.
>
> I think this would also make fit nicely with Cocoon blocks, as it makes
> things very modular.
>
> Do you think having such support makes sense?
I think id does :-)
This would solve these problems at least:
- formalize the MVC pattern which is nice to get one's mouth full but is
never fully done. MVC is conceptually simple, yet powerfull. This would
finally stop any phrase like:" I prefer to use Struts because it's MVC".
*This* is real MVC.
- make use of different optimizations in each MVC domain, ie
*Separation of Concerns*. Till now, the sitemap has been use as a big
state-type controller, and hacked in many ways. This has mixed concerns
that should remain separate, ie business logic and flow.
- reduce scope of components making reuse more possible. It's a fact
that when a component wants to be everything to everyone it sometimes
gets difficult to reuse it in a non-thought-before approach.
This way we have a more "domained" reuse (M||V||C) that makes sense.
Now the hard parts are making this business part rolling and how to
control it from the flow...
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
