Sylvain Wallez wrote:

Vadim Gritsenko wrote:

Sylvain Wallez wrote:

I'm asking because I several times encountered the need for some very small app-specific code to be called as part of a pipeline that otherwise don't need all the bells and whistles of a flowscript call, and I'm still thinking a flow-action may be a very usefull addition, i.e. an action that allows to call a flowscript function (and access the global scope) but doesn't require to end with a sendPage or sendPageAndWait.



"I told you so" ;-)



Nonono! What we voted against was the fact that <map:call> could act like a <map:act>, and I'm still -1 on it! What I'm suggesting here is a real <map:act> (and I also suggested it a that time, IIRC)


But why then y'all have VOTEd against it just before a release?



This was to have a clear semantic for <map:call>, requiring it to terminate with a sendPage or sendPageAndWait, contrarily to <map:act> that doesn't require a redirect to happen and can also return values to the sitemap.


These are IMO very different things.


I see. Yes, there is a difference :-)

Vadim

Reply via email to