On 9/27/05, Dave Howorth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Baird wrote: > > > On 9/26/05, Aaron Trevena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>On 9/26/05, David Baird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>I've been stashing modifications to Maypole.pm away for some time, I > >>>think it's time to show them. > >> > >>I've just had a quick look and it covers several things I wanted to > >>do, especially the 'done' flag. > > This is one of those moments where I haven't got a clue about the issue! > I don't understand what the done flag is for, and even less what the > requirements for _run_workflow and all its friends are. So to me it all > just seems to complicate things :(
The main thing I wanted it for was internal redirects - internal_redirect() is like a super-template switcheroo, where you can switcheroo the action as well. If you've completed the entire workflow, but not yet processed the template, and something calls internal_redirect(), internal_redirect() needs some way of knowing whether we're still inside the workflow (in which case, just resetting the sequence is enough to re-run a new request), or if the workflow has been completed (in which case, internal_redirect() needs to rerun the workflow itself). I'm sure similar things would be possible with the current setup as well. > >>I think documenting, clarifying and reworking the workflow are > >>essential for 2.12 before we do anything else on it. I think mucking > >>about with workflow before 2.11 leaves us too little time to get out > >>the essential work on ease of use for beginners. I agree, I'm not proposing the _run_workflow stuff for 2.11, and anyway, I'm not happy with the phase subclasses as they stand. > > I'd like to see documenting and clarifying first :) I'd offer to do > documenting, but until I get to the point where I can understand what's > important and what isn't - e.g. the 'done' flag - I don't see much that > I could contribute. I've got a much better idea of how the Maypole workflow works by writing the _run_workflow stuff. One Of These Days I'll have a stab at some of the docs. > > FWIW, the first major change I'd like to see is the separation of > request and controller. You know, I'm not so sure about that. I was keen on that too, until I hacked _run_workflow(), took everything out of Maypole and put it in phase subclasses, thought about taking _run_workflow out and putting it in a controller class, and then I thought, how the hell do users alter this? How do plugins alter it? So then I started making the phases call back in to the request for things like authenticate() and is_applicable(), and then I'm back to standard Maypole. Of course, users could subclass the workflow/phases/controller class(es), but that's beginning to look like a lot of trouble to go to, when we could just have a series of overridable hooks on the request (i.e. like authorize() and is_applicable()). d. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Maypole-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maypole-devel
