Guido Casper wrote:
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Guido Casper wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that the sitemap is a declarative thing (and the pointy brackets always remind us of that). While skripting the
I think this is not true. For those who do not use flowscript sitemap became a "programming language" a long time ago. Insert a lot of database actions, authorization actions, mail actions and you will get more flow than declaration.
But that was the reason for flowscript's introduction (originally termed flowmap :) ... to keep the sitemap clean of flow logic.
This is what concerns me: a "scriptable" sitemap syntax will make it *easier* for people to turn a declarative model into a procedural one.
Now, it has always been a given that separation between pipelines as declarations and flow as procedures was a "good thing"(tm).
Is it true?
We know that a sitemap with tons of actions is just a pain in the ass to deal with, then we created flow to make it easier to separate the two.
If the sitemap syntax was more "scriptable" and having many actions was just like calling functions, would it be that bad?
if we had a unified sitemap+flowscript -> sitescript that used components *and* continuations as "native objects" of the language, would the need for separation be that high and the notion of merging the two so sinful?
I don't know.
But I would *love* to have such a "sitescript" and play with it so see how it feels... because, if you think about it, there is no way to reuse a sitemap without touching flowscript, they are interconnected... are we experiencing "overseparation of concerns" forced by the non-scriptable syntax of the sitemap?
I really don't know, but I'm not so sure the usefulness of that separation and I'd be very happy to have this butterfly to see if things fly a little better ;-)
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
