Ivelin Ivanov wrote: > > I have been following along the thread silently trying to finally "get" the > picture. > > At this point, the only reasonable question that I can ask is, > if it is possible to consider providing the continuation capabilities within > the Actions instead of promoting JavaScript as another language supported by > Cocoon.
instead? no. I *want* the ability to describe the flow of my application with a weakly typed and interpreted language. This said, I would not be against the use of the continuation paradigm for other parts of Cocoon, if that makes sense. Just remember that compiled bytecode interpreted directly by the JVM can't have continuations because java doesn't have that concept (and it's not possible to add it without patching the JVM, which is not something we can do). > My reasoning is that for the size and scalability of the web applications > that I am dealing with, I wouldn't bet too much on a loosely typed and > non-compiled language. These are two different things: it's entirely possible to think to have a java 'emulation' layer that provides continuations (but I'm sure performance would be horrible!). That would give you continuations for your strong-typed code. Or, we could think of a javascript compilation layer that is capable of understanding how to save its own state as a continuation (don't ask me how this could be done, though, I have no idea! hmmm, maybe thru exception throwing?) > If provided, however, I may seriously consider using > a more sophisticated paradigm for flow control within my actions. For sure, a most sophisticated paradigm for flow control requires some level of indirection of your action bytecodes. And as far as performance goes, I'm not sure that having part of the flow interpreted is going to impact that much on performance. (note that business logic is performed by java objects and resource creation is still performed by the normal cocoon pipelines). It's clear that I consider the flow layer a *much* better alternative to actions in many senses and the performance impact of the interpretation layer will have to be tested before using this as an argument. This said, I'm entirely in favor of making it as simple as possible to call actions from the flow layer or viceversa (even if I don't know how). Just understand that in order to have continuations, we need an interpretation layer on top of the JVM. This is a fact. So we can't simply attach continuations to actions and forget about the flow. I'm aware of the feeling that such a 'strange' technology provoques in people (expecially java people that are used to live in their 100% pure world), but please, let's try to be a little more flexible than this and consider this just a try in an innovative direction and let's have the community of users decide it's fate. -- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
