Torsten Curdt wrote:
...
One of the points of the wiki page was appealing on the first glance
and turned into another RT: it might be a good idea to remove the
stigmata from actions and join the concepts a bit more. IMHO having
map:act *and* map:call is not really nice.
<map:call action="my-action" function="function-name"/>
<map:call action="my-action"/> <!-- defaulting to the current
default method -->
<map:call flow="my-flow" function="start-of-flow"/>
<map:call function="start-of-flow"/> <!-- ok if there is only one
flow defined -->
<map:call continuation="{1}" />
Something better would be even to handle a flow without "sending"
a page as an action. So users would not have to think about whether
it is an action or a flow. Of course this blurs the contracts a bit
WDYT?
+1
IMO it is often a better SoC to have "integration" code in actions and
use flow scripts only for the actual page flow. It would become
convenient to code in that way if both "flow function" and action
functions could be defined in the same way and maybe in the same JS (or
Java) file and be used in similar way with similar environments.
And, yes it is time to remove the stigmata from actions, with JS based
actions and the compiling classloader it is efficient to develop with
actions.
The original idea with reusable actions that was put together in a
obscure way with action sets still deserves its stigmata, though ;)
/Daniel
