[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip/>
If we change this we have to change this too, don't we?
<map:flow language="JavaScript"> <map:script src="flow.js"/> </map:flow>
-->
<map:flow engine="xyz"> <map:controller src="yyz"/> </map:flow>
What do you think?
Although we can change the attribute of <map:flow> ("type" would be more in accordance with other sitemap statements), it's content is actually a Configuration object given to the chosen flow engine. For type="JavaScript", it fully makes sense to list script files, but other implementations could have a totally different configuration, including class names.
Note : that's why, at the start of flow discussion (a looooog time ago), I wanted to put <map:flow> inside <map:components>, because this is actually what it is : a component definition and configuration.
So you propose
<map:flow type="JavaScript"> <map:??? src="flow.js"/> </map:flow>
What element should replace ??? in your opinion? <map:controller ... ?
The point sylvain tried to make (if I understood it)
if looking at it as a component we configure then it would be up to the specific component to decide?
for state-automate it would probably be:
<map:flow type="InteractionInstance">
<map:controller class="com.acme.YourClass"/>
</map:flow>
for the current js engine most likely just keeping: <map:flow type="JavaScript"> <map:script src="flow.js"/> </map:flow>
makes the most sense.
Reinhard
Actually this was part of the discussion we didn't really want to open up again... given the fact that the very first reply touches it however we might want to wander along this path some more.
In any case, for hooking in stateless gateways the stress on having only one possible engine is even more limithing (feasible through some delegation hacking I guess)
-marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
