How about: sendAndSuspend sendAndResume
Artur... > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: December 4, 2002 4:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Changes made to flow system.js > > > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Michael Melhem wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:19:33PM +0100, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Marcus Crafter wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Troops! > >>>> > >>>> Hope all is well. > >>>> > >>>> I've just checked in BZ#14903 which changes the names of the > >>>> flow sendPage* functions as previously discussed in > the 'flow > >>>> wishlist' thread. > >>>> > >>>> Unfortunately the change is *not* backwards > compatible so please > >>>> be careful and update any flow code you might have > locally after > >>>> updating. > >>>> > >>>> The changes are: > >>>> > >>>> sendPage() becomes sendPageAndWait() > >>>> sendPageAndContinue() becomes sendPage() > >>>> > >>>> The last one is the tricky one because the method names are > >>>> essentially swapped. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Just some thoughts (sorry if this already has been > discussed, I may > >>> have missed it) : why not keeping the "sendPageAndContinue" ? > >>> > >> > >> > >> sendPageAndContinue is precisely the problem, many people were > >> confusing "Continue" with continuations! > >> > >> > > > > Ah, ok, I understand... but I'm still uncomfortable with having a > > precise "sendPageAndWait" and an imprecise "sendPage", as > inconsistent > > naming always leads to confusion. > > > > So, last try : what about "sendPageAndReturn" ? > > I think Sylvain has a point. I'm not sure I like 'sendPageAndReturn' > that much, but it's true that 'sendPage' contains less > semantic meaning > than 'sendPageAndWait' and therefore might become a little > confusing at > first. It's a little bit semantically unbalanced and this doesn't > reflect in their functional operation. > > So, let's see, that method is supposed to 'send a page' to the client > but is not going to wait for the client to come back and > continue. So, > the real name would be something like > > - sendPageAndDontWait > > but that sucks. > > - sendPageAndReturn > > is nice but only if you understand that the flow layer takes control > over the sitemap and that 'return' means that you are returning from > procedural continuation-based control (the flowscript) to declerative > request driven control (the sitemap) > > So it does have perfect sense for us, but I'm not sure it does for > somebody that looks at the flowscript for the first time. > > But I can't come up with anything better because > > - sendPageAndExit > > might be even worse (people might think Cocoon might stop!) > > Any idea? > > -- > Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
