I'm reposting this, since I posted it just before Christmas and I'm
afraid it was overlooked.
Christopher Oliver wrote:
Yes, you can use Function.apply() to pass a variable argument list to
another function, like this:
Great! It works perfectly. Now I can use the Flow to protect all the
map
Christopher Oliver wrote:
Yes, you can use Function.apply() to pass a variable argument list to
another function, like this:
Great! It works perfectly. Now I can use the Flow to protect all the
map:call's without checking the user's credentials in every single
function, BUT ...
... I still
Ugo Cei wrote:
Christopher Oliver wrote:
Try this:
function checkLogin(funarg) {
if (user == null) {
login();
this[funarg]();
}
}
Thanks, it worked! While you're at it, would it be possible to pass
arguments to "funarg", by defining them in the sitemap? I mea
Christopher Oliver wrote:
Try this:
function checkLogin(funarg) {
if (user == null) {
login();
this[funarg]();
}
}
Thanks, it worked! While you're at it, would it be possible to pass
arguments to "funarg", by defining them in the sitemap? I mean:
Hi Ugo,
Ugo Cei wrote:
function checkLogin(funarg)
{
if (user == null)
login();
funarg();
}
This doesn't seem to work. It always generates an error message like
"org.mozilla.javascript.EvaluatorException: checkout is not a function."
But if I invoke the same function directly from
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
Not really. You can automate this task by arranging in your sitemap to
call a function that checks the login first, instead of your function.
The following will do it:
Sitemap:
Flow:
var user;
function login()
{
// send the necessary pages for
Konstantin Piroumian wrote:
Yes, this should work. But I'd prefer to avoid passing the function name as
parameter. What about this version:
Which is a security nightmare, since you are allowing any logged-in user
to execute ANY function in your flowscript.
Or a
From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Monday, Dec 9, 2002, at 05:21 US/Pacific, Konstantin Piroumian wrote:
>
> > In case of the flow script you should place login() function call in
> > every
> > function that needs authorized access, while for the state machine
> > approach
> > you cou
On Monday, Dec 9, 2002, at 05:21 US/Pacific, Konstantin Piroumian wrote:
In case of the flow script you should place login() function call in
every
function that needs authorized access, while for the state machine
approach
you could create a superstate - AuthorizedState - for all the
sub-sta
Hi!
(Sorry for late jump in)
From: "Ivelin Ivanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This is actually a good example.
>
> For fairness sake, I haven't seen many J2EE applications which forward to
> login from different spots though.
> J2EE containers usually take care of login and return to original URL.
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Only one thing: why it's great to have somebody playing devil's advocate
and somebody else excited about something new, let's not forget that we
*all* are working in the same team and for the same di
This is actually a good example.
For fairness sake, I haven't seen many J2EE applications which forward to
login from different spots though.
J2EE containers usually take care of login and return to original URL.
Ivelin
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Only one thing: why it's great to have somebody playing devil's advocate
> and somebody else excited about something new, let's not forget that we
> *all* are working in the same team and for the same direction.
I am t
Hi Ivelin,
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
I have nothing new to add, but would like to balance the discussion
with a reminder:
- Original Message -
From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [
Uh, how useful is it to insist that something be fully implemented to
prove a point in a discussion on a mailing list? The purpose of my
example was to show that the flow layer allows you to avoid the
state-machine code required in XMLForm actions (which is what you
questioned in your original
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Check out Christopher's implementation using the control flow:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103923083624699&w=2
Good attempt, although unfinished. I already described its shortc
- Original Message -
From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Check out Christopher's implementation using the control flow:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103923083624699&w=2
Good attempt, although unfinished. I already described its shortcomings.
Bottom
I have nothing new to add, but would like to balance the discussion
with a reminder:
- Original Message -
From: "Ovidiu Predescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm w
On Friday, Dec 6, 2002, at 10:34 US/Pacific, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
Sorry I wasn't clear before.
I know you can call Java from the flow.
The question is how to use the flow in a way which significantly
reduces
code while making the maintenance easier and improving the
r
nance easier and improving the readability.
Try to beat the existing XMLForm wizard demo.
If you succeed, it will be great !
Fingers crossed,
Ivelin
- Original Message -
From: "Ugo Cei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:36 AM
Su
Right on.
- Original Message -
From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow
> Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
> > Sorry I wasn't clear
Apparently we have different perspectives on this matter,
but that is good.
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow
e making the maintenance easier and improving the readability.
Try to beat the existing XMLForm wizard demo.
If you succeed, it will be great !
Fingers crossed,
Ivelin
- Original Message -
From: "Ugo Cei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday
: "Christopher Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow
> Um, I think Daniel basically answered this question a long time ago:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-coco
adability.
Try to beat the existing XMLForm wizard demo.
If you succeed, it will be great !
Fingers crossed,
Ivelin
- Original Message -----
From: "Ugo Cei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Imp
gt; From: Ovidiu Predescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 8:45 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow
>
>
> Hi Reinhard,
> On Thursday, Dec 5, 2002, at 13:25 US/Pacific, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> >>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ugo Cei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow
>
>
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> > I have already successfully reimplmented
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
Sorry I wasn't clear before.
I know you can call Java from the flow.
The question is how to use the flow in a way which significantly reduces
code while making the maintenance easier and improving the readability.
I think this is a serious challenge and I'd love to see the r
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
Sorry I wasn't clear before.
I know you can call Java from the flow.
The question is how to use the flow in a way which significantly reduces
code
while making the maintenance easier and improving the readability.
Try to beat the existing XMLForm wizard demo.
If you succeed,
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I have already successfully reimplmented the XMLForms using the control
flow. I would have posted an example but internal reasons made enhancements
and changes to the XMLForms implementation necessary.
I will come up with some more details soon. Are you interested?
Regards,
Hi Reinhard,
On Thursday, Dec 5, 2002, at 13:25 US/Pacific, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Conclusion: let's reimplement XMLForm using Flow as the controller and
get rid of those actions.
I have already successfully reimplmented the XMLForms using the control
flow. I would have posted an example but int
yes.
- Original Message -
From: "Reinhard Poetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow
> > Conclusion: let's reimplement XMLForm using Flow as the co
great !
Fingers crossed,
Ivelin
- Original Message -
From: "Ugo Cei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow
> Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
> > I hope you are t
,
I would consider that a serious step ahead.
Cheers,
Ivelin
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow
Ivelin,
N
> Conclusion: let's reimplement XMLForm using Flow as the controller and
> get rid of those actions.
I have already successfully reimplmented the XMLForms using the control
flow. I would have posted an example but internal reasons made enhancements
and changes to the XMLForms implementation necess
I've been looking into this too, and would like to add my 2 cents.
Basically I'm trying to build an interactive "wizard" type application,
but don't want to author the the wizard pages themselves, or control the
flow; this is because the content & flow is highly specialized, and I am
not :->.
It
Ugo Cei wrote:
But, as Ovidiu pointed out, you can!
Sorry, wrong attribution again. It was Christopher Oliver actually.
Ugo
--
Ugo Cei - http://www.beblogging.com/blog/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additi
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
I hope you are the last hero trying to confront this monster.
The discussion how to combine the two has been going on forever, but we have
not come to an agreement.
I'm currently recovering the previous threads from the archive and
reading them.
I would gladly offer my ta
Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
I hope you are the last hero trying to confront this monster.
The discussion how to combine the two has been going on forever, but we have
not come to an agreement.
I would gladly offer my tactical guidance for your effort.
The biggest issue that I had so far with the flow i
ement Java interfaces in JavaScript.
Regards,
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Ivelin Ivanov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 8:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Implementing XMLForm with Flow
I hope you are the last hero trying to confront
I hope you are the last hero trying to confront this monster.
The discussion how to combine the two has been going on forever, but we have
not come to an agreement.
I would gladly offer my tactical guidance for your effort.
The biggest issue that I had so far with the flow is how to implement in
Daniel Fagerström wrote:
We had a discussion about half a year ago about how to integrate XMLForm
and Flow [1], I proposed a design and booth Ovidiu and Ivelin seemed to
Obviously at the time I wasn't interested in form handling at all,
otherwise I'd have remembered that thread ;-).
I could a
Ugo Cei wrote:
Premise #1: XMLForm has great support for XForms and validation, but
it uses butt-ugly actions for implementing the Control part of MVC.
Premise #2: Control Flow rocks as an MVC (or MVC+) controller.
Conclusion: let's reimplement XMLForm using Flow as the controller and
get rid
I agree. I need to create a new payroll system. I will like to make it
using XMLForms and ModularDB.
I think the Database interface to XMLForms can be done easier. As little
as I know about that, the DB interface currently must be done using
JavaBeans. :-(
But maybe we can find another way to imp
44 matches
Mail list logo
