It may not matter much, but I'd prefer to see examples of this without flow. With flow you could just degenerate into a map:call for input and a map:call for output, or perhaps a map:call that does both?
Take a look at my answer to Bertrands post. In that example you coul remove the map:call, or maybe use a select between the input and the output part of the pipeline.
/Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RT] Cocoon Input Model
Le Mercredi, 25 fév 2004, à 16:49 Europe/Zurich, Daniel Fagerstrom a écrit :
<snip-plenty-of-good-stuff/>
...But in many cases using SAX based XML as in pipelines is not enough we need a data structure i.e. DOM. This leads to flowscript components that reads some input format to DOM and from DOM to some output format or some store. We also will need flowscript components that go from DOM to DOM...
Just trying to understand from a practical point of view, does this mean something like
<map:generate type="request"/> <map:transform src="prepare-query-for-user-preferences"/> <map:transform type="sql"/> <map:call function="myFlow()" dom-input="domIn"/>
At which point myFlow() is called with a "domIn" variable containing the current pipeline XML as a DOM?
And maybe the opposite:
<map:call function="myFlow()" dom-output="domOut"/>
meaning that myFlow() is expected to write a DOM structure to domOut for insertion in the pipeline?
-Bertrand
