Christopher Oliver wrote:
<snip/>
The problem I have with the proposed changes is that they obscure the design and use of flowscript (in order to support some other unspecified "flow engine", which to appears to not really have the same "interface" as the flowscript engine, IMO). To try to force them to use the same sitemap constructs seems unnecessary and counterproductive.
First of all, the usual disclaimer, as the continuation-based flow script has unfortunately become a kind of religion in Cocoon : I love the flowscript and continuations, and I do use it for real-world applications. But I'd also like other "religions" to be able to exist.
Now back to the discussion...
What is the more obscure :
- "Intepreter" or "FlowEngine" ? "Interpreter" is something that interprets a language, and not something that drives the application flow.
Interpreters are things that have "functions" and "continuations". What are "FlowEngines" exactly?
- "WebContinuation" or "FlowState" ? Continuations are a particular implementation of a way to store the flow state.
- <map:call function> or <map:call flow> ? "function" is a related to entry points in a functional language. How does this relate to application flow ?
With Flowscript, the application (page) flow _is_ actually defined by a functional programming language. That's the whole point. Your proposed name changes obscure this, IMO.
- <map:call continuation> or <map:call state> ? Again, "continuation" is a particular implementation of the flow state.
Well, right now it's the key concept that makes Flowscript possible. I think it's a little more than a mere implementation detail.
This discussion has clearly digressed into a subjective discussion about names. So -0 to any name changes.
I really think the proposed changes better represent the real concepts behind the flow stuff rather than the current names which are more related to the particular implementation we have today.
What do others think ?
