On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 04:52:43PM +, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Michael Melhem wrote:
Hmmm, but if we get that far, then
flowmap
map type=regexp patter=blah* flow=blahFlow/
/flowmap
isn't just syntax sugar for
pipeline
match type=regexp pattern=blah*
call
Michael Melhem / Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
snip
map:sitemap
map:components
/map:components
map:flow
map:script
src=myflow.js
/map:script
map:flowmap
map:map pattern=login/ flow=login/
map:map type=regexp pattern=register*/
Michael Melhem wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 04:52:43PM +, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Michael Melhem wrote:
Hmmm, but if we get that far, then
flowmap
map type=regexp patter=blah* flow=blahFlow/
/flowmap
isn't just syntax sugar for
pipeline
match type=regexp pattern=blah*
call
Michael Melhem wrote:
Hmmm, but if we get that far, then
flowmap
map type=regexp patter=blah* flow=blahFlow/
/flowmap
isn't just syntax sugar for
pipeline
match type=regexp pattern=blah*
call function=blahFlow/
/match
/pipeline
???
Hmm..Well maybe, but for the fact that
My 2 cents here. I haven't read the whole discussion thread, so please
illuminate me if I'm missing the point.
Why can't we use the same syntax as today and extend the treeprocessor
to prevent stuff from being added before and after the call function/
element? It seems to me this is the most
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Michael Melhem wrote:
If it is decided that best practice is to disallow actions
and routing components around flow calls:-
map:match pattern=login/
!-- no sitemap routing/Acting components allowed --
map:call
Michael Melhem wrote:
Well the point here, no matter whether we use the word pipeline or
resource, is that flows and resources/pipelines are fundimentally
different beasts and probably shouldnt be living in the same paddock.
Agreed.
The hard part is to identify what a pipeline is.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I know almost everybody is idle for the holydays, but I want to reply to
this before I forgot :)
Unfortunaltly my idle time is over and im now back in freezing
Germany. Hmmm...
Michael Melhem wrote:
Hi,
Ok, here is a little rant on
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I don't think I will! However, when doing architecture you always
have to ask if inverting a control flow makes sense; sometimes
abstractions suddenly become obvious or new use cases jump out.
Oh totally.
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Oh boy, it's already hard enough to indicate what is a good URI, if we
start discussing what is a 'flow uri' compared to a 'resource uri' we
get in trouble.
This comes at the matching issue the opposite way that I did
initially: instead of
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
snip on stuff we agree about/
Now, if the type was available in the flow, you could get different
resources for the same flow.
Well, how would Cocoon know how to match? Say I ask for '/dashboard' how
is the pipeline going to find out where
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Then don't propose it.
I don't think I will! However, when doing architecture you always have to
ask if inverting a control flow makes sense; sometimes abstractions suddenly
become obvious or new use cases jump out.
Oh totally. That's why I
I know almost everybody is idle for the holydays, but I want to reply to
this before I forgot :)
Michael Melhem wrote:
Hi,
Ok, here is a little rant on flow/sitemap intergration :)
First, let me tell you that I link your ranting style a lot :)
1. What Is A Cocoon Pipeline?
There are at
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Hi again Stefano,
Peter Hunsberger here; I was watching for your reply to this since it seemed
to get specific about some of the issues we had discussed more generally a
couple of weeks ago.
big snip/
So I find the notion of flow uri's living side by side with
14 matches
Mail list logo
