Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > Torsten Curdt wrote: > >> IMHO having map:act *and* map:call is not really nice. > > > Why not? IMHO it is more readable to have > > <map:act function="foo"/> > <map:call function="bar"/> > > than: > >> <map:call action="my-action" function="function-name"/> >> <map:call flow="my-flow" function="start-of-flow"/> > > > I'd rather rename <map:call/> to something more flow-specific (e.g. > <map:invoke/>) than <map:act/> to <map:call/>. >
+1, agree > Another reason for clear separation of these two concepts is that > <map:call function=""/> requires to sendPage(), while action does not. > I think this part is what I hinted at in my other post about historically actions being something in-between flowlike-decission-takers and custom input-modules... so what we talk about here and now are probably not actions as we know them ? -marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
