> From: Steven Noels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On 22/06/2003 6:01 Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > > Both actions and input/output modules were created to > overcome sitemap > > programmability limitations. Flow doesn't have those limitations > > anymore so i don't see the reason to keep those artifacts here. > > > > What do others think about this? > > I think the current community and mindshare behind flow is still too > small to already start deprecating 'old-fashioned hacks'
I think nothing will be depracated - not at the moment. The time will show if there is still need for 'old-fashioned hacks'. > which were and > still are being (ab)used a lot for the same reasons flow will be > (ab)used for. Also, the continuations thing appears to be only one > possible way to address the webapp dev paradigm. I don't > think you are > suggesting an active depreciation, but suggestions like the one above > seem rather tendencious and suggestive IMHO. > > OK, it is only a small quote lifted out of context, but it is a good > illustration of my worry that flow, being a very interesting > approach, > still is _only_just_one_ approach to attack the given problem > domain. As Yes, one of _many_ approaches. > much as I'm genuinely interested in continuation-based flow, I think > flow needs some more real-world usage (like Pier's case) before we > consider it being part of the core features of Cocoon (on the > same level > of 'streamlined XML processing' and 'the sitemap'). I read the above > statement as a suggestion into that direction. Ok. Then we should tell our users that Cocoon 2.1 offers a new way of writing web applications, use the time until Cocoon 2.2 (or whatever) will be released to use the flow in more real life use cases. And then if we still say "Wow, what a revolutionary approach of writing web apps!" we can resposition Cocoon in that sense that the control flow is an equal part to the sitemap. (Please note, this has nothing to do with technology itself but with marketing!) What do you think? > If I say 'core', I mean the kind of stuff which you _have_ to > use if you > want to use Cocoon, not the 'blocks vs core' discussion, or > 'it has an > impact on the sitemap grammar'. I'm pretty sure that you > don't want to > see flow added to Cocoon with people openly saying 'ok', but silently > thinking 'whatever, I'm going to stick to my way anyhow'. > > Oh. Do please read this as a neutral observation, will you? > I'm not into > flames. If I'm wrong with my observation, just say so and > I'll withdraw > to my cave. ;-) > > Cheers, > > </Steven> Reinhard
