On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 06:40:01PM +0100, Jeremy Quinn wrote: > > On 1 Apr 2005, at 17:21, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > >Jeremy Quinn wrote: > >>On 1 Apr 2005, at 15:33, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > > ><snip/> > > > >>>I personally never used this "handleForm" function and consider it > >>>as some old legacy. > >>Hmmm, I disagree. > >>I never like to embed names of files or pipelines in flowscript > >>functions. > >>I always pass these in from the sitemap. > >>This way, the sitemap is the place where all paths, filenames, uris > >>are managed, or the location that consistently retrieves these from a > >>config, via input-modules. > >>I do not like to spread this around as it makes refactoring more > >>difficult. > > > >Then I suggest you come up with consistent parameters naming and > >change this function yourself :-), I'm not against keeping it. > > OK Vadim :) > > If there are other people using this function, I would rather have a > consensus on what the changes are. > > I do not actually mind if the consensus is to deprecate the function, > but I do think it is a bad idea to recommend keeping paths etc in > flowscripts .....
I totally agree with Jeremy that passing over the input to the flow script from the sitemap is a good thing for refactoring but also for overview. I'm not so much concerned with the form and binding URIs as those are normally only used within the function called and pollutes the sitemap with mostly irrelevant constants but this is just my POV. But what I've learned is that especially passing over the URI of the "display-pipeline" in a consistent way can help clarify how a flow script connects back to the sitemap. Ciao Giacomo -- Giacomo Pati Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
