On Tuesday, Oct 29, 2002, at 01:51 US/Pacific, Michael Melhem wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
On Monday, Oct 28, 2002, at 07:25 US/Pacific, Michael Melhem wrote:
I don't think there's a good reason for this complexity. Do you have a
good use case for such a usage?
Im not
> What I would like to be able to do is specify a flow for
> the report masks, and a seperate flow for the reports (with
> out having to have a seperate sitemap in this case). This seems
> to me "natural" thing one might wish to do, rather than "complex"
> thing. :)
I second that - it would feel n
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
Hi Ovidiu,
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Monday, Oct 28, 2002, at 07:25 US/Pacific, Michael Melhem wrote:
>
> > Hello Cocooners,
> >
> > I have a proposal for "pipeline level flowmaps" (and flowmap chaining)
> > as an extention to the existing sitemap-level flowm
Hi Michael,
On Monday, Oct 28, 2002, at 07:25 US/Pacific, Michael Melhem wrote:
Hello Cocooners,
I have a proposal for "pipeline level flowmaps" (and flowmap chaining)
as an extention to the existing sitemap-level flowmaps.
This proposal is based on the assumption that at the moment, each
site
Hello Cocooners,
I have a proposal for "pipeline level flowmaps" (and flowmap chaining)
as an extention to the existing sitemap-level flowmaps.
This proposal is based on the assumption that at the moment, each
sitemap can define *at most one* flow controller as follows:
If you consider tha
