Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
>> Stefano, Vadim,
...
>> Actually I now realize that declaring flow scripts this way,
>> interferes with Vadim's proposal on using <map:flow> to invoke a
>> function or restart a continuation. Can we find a better name for
>> <map:flow> in this context? I was thinking of <map:flow-resources>,
>> but it's a bit too long for my taste. As an alternative how about
>> <map:controller>?
>
>
>
> I like very much this <map:controller> as it's the name used
> traditionnaly in the MVC pattern. Cocoon shouldn't invent a new word
> (map:flow) to designate a well-known concept. MVC is much hyped and is a
> "magic word" for many customers (see how many of them want Struts
> because it's MVC).
>
> If we choose <map:controller>, then using <map:flow> to call this
> controller doesn't sound well. Something like <map:call-controller>
> sounds better, but you may find it a bit lengthy...
>
> Other thoughts ?
+1 for <map:controller>, and BTW Stefano also hinted on an interview
about the discussion we had about MVC+ ... :-D
I agree with you Sylvain, it's clear for users and "magic word", and
above all I don't see the negative sides.
> <snipped what="single element proposal which I agree with"/>
>
> Sylvain
>
--
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]
