Re: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow

[Christopher Oliver]

Uh, how useful is it to insist that something be fully implemented to prove a point in a discussion on a mailing list? The purpose of my example was to show that the flow layer allows you to avoid the state-machine code required in XMLForm actions (which is what you questioned in your original message), not to implement all of the details of your example. If your only objection (now) is that you don't think it can be implemented then I believe Ugo has already offered to demonstrate that that is not the case.
In any case, I don't think our perspectives are really that different. You are afraid of JavaScript spagetti code. That is a legitimate concern in my opinion as well. However, spagetti code can occur in any language (including Java), so that should also be a concern in XMLForm actions. You are concerned about the overhead of continuations. That is also a concern to me (and to Ovidiu and he has been profiling the flow layer to track this).
I'm also a little surprised you don't seem to want a flow layer based interface to XMLForm. Personally, I think it could enhance the usability and value of that component (by replacing the action handling code - with the flow layer - but retaining the rest of its current functionality).

Regards,
Chris

Ivelin Ivanov wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Check out Christopher's implementation using the control flow:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103923083624699&w=2

Good attempt, although unfinished. I already described its shortcomings.
Bottom line, it doesn't implement the same functionality.


Ivelin



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]