On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Marc Portier wrote:
>
>
> Christian Haul wrote:
> > On 06.Dec.2002 -- 04:07 PM, Marc Portier wrote:
> >
> >>Giacomo, Sylvain,
> >>
> >>I see my remark wasn't that stupid after all (taking as an
> >>argument the fact the statistic unlikeliness of having exact
> >>equal idiots) Sorry, for not earlier reading deeper down the
> >>thread though...
> >>
> >>only I'm not ready to give in yet...
> >>
> >>is making a continuation really atomicly linked to sending a
> >>page? Your argumentation makes me see that:
> >>Rather then 2 there are 3 concerns covered in the sendPageAnd...
> >>I guess it's more like
> >>makeAContinuationRef_And_UseItToSendPage_And_SafeStateForNextRequest
> >>:-)
> >
> >
> > The problem is that you need to have something to place on the page
> > that links to the continuation id. Thus you need to have your
> > continuation before sending the page. Hence suspending and sending is
> > one atomic operation.
> >
> > Chris.
>
> Now I see it: when the page is sent the links are available to be
> clicked upon and thus the 'state' should be there.
>
> I only considered the creation part ATM (and there I argumented
> that for creating the URI-links you don't need to save the state
> yet)
>
> Think I got it now, so we are back to the straightforward naming
> discussion... thinking back of my highschool-basic-time this
> kinda boils down to finding the equivalent of
>
> 0 CLS
> 10 PRINT "This is only out:"
> 20 INPUT "This prompt asks you to enter something:" , answer
>
> which would make me advocate
>
> for the output only:
> sendPage("name-o-page") or even
> printPage(...) or
> echoPage(...)
>
> for the input kind of page
> getFormInput("name-o-form") or
> getFormReply(...)
And thus we are back to my lastly proposed method names:
sendPage( page ) // without waiting
getAnswerFor( page )
or
getReplyFor( page )
Giacomo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
