On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 11:27 Europe/Rome, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 23:49 Europe/Rome, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
<snip/>
And this really demonstrates how dangerous can be this translation to positional parameter ;-)
why don't we fix this, then?
Well, positional parameters have been there since day one in FlowScript, and many of the existing flows, including Cocoon's own flow libraries such as XMLForm and Woody rely on this feature.
Can you explain how? I've personally used flow without thinking of variable positioning, it just happened to be ordered correctly. I can easily see people pissed off by discoverying this "feature" after hours of cursing!
And this is what will happen if they put their variables with the right name but in the wrong order !
So we can't remove it abruptly.
If we match by variable name rather than by position, it would work anyway.
... but I have the feeling I'm missing a big point here.
Yeah : the point is that parameters are passed as Object[] to a JS function. The names given both in the sitemap parameters and the JS function parameters are therefore unusable for parameter passing. Only their position counts. See FOM_JavaScriptInterpreter.callFunction (line 553) : "funArgs" is a Object[].
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects } Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
