Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-27 Thread Sylvain Wallez
Antonio Gallardo wrote: snip/ AFAIK, in a webapp you can also review the authentication and authorization: map:pipeline internal-only=true map:match pattern=fo-*.pdf map:generate src=docs/informes/fo-{1}/ map:transform src=stylesheets/fo-{1}2fo.xsl/ map:serialize type=fo2pdf/

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Stephan Coboos
Antonio Gallardo wrote: We already have map:action to this. With map:action the sitemap complexity grows very fast in some times to unreadable sizes. Yes, but why using Java on the one hand and JavaScript on the other? Why not using for both solutions JavaScript as alternative way? This mix

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Antonio Gallardo
Stephan Coboos dijo: Antonio Gallardo wrote: We already have map:action to this. With map:action the sitemap complexity grows very fast in some times to unreadable sizes. Yes, but why using Java on the one hand and JavaScript on the other? Why not using for both solutions JavaScript as

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Stephan Coboos
Antonio Gallardo wrote: AFAIK, there as an initiative to use javascript in XSP. But for a lack of interest there is not fully developed. Yes, I know. But I dont like XSP. I think XSP is not the best way to integrate logic. For historical reasons flow was introduced with flowscript for

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Leszek Gawron
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:22:12AM +0100, Stephan Coboos wrote: I think a solution like this: map:match pattern=first map:call function=getValues return=true/ map:transform type=jxt/ map:serialize/ /map:match is more easier to understand than this: map:match pattern=first

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Antonio Gallardo
Stephan Coboos dijo: is more easier to understand than this: map:match pattern=first map:call function=getValues/ /map:match map:match pattern=second map:generate type=jxt/ map:serialize/ /map:match Did you already saw the advantage of this?: map:pipeline map:match

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Stephan Coboos
Leszek Gawron wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:22:12AM +0100, Stephan Coboos wrote: I think a solution like this: map:match pattern=first map:call function=getValues return=true/ map:transform type=jxt/ map:serialize/ /map:match is more easier to understand than this: map:match

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Stephan Coboos
Antonio Gallardo wrote: Stephan Coboos dijo: is more easier to understand than this: map:match pattern=first map:call function=getValues/ /map:match map:match pattern=second map:generate type=jxt/ map:serialize/ /map:match Did you already saw the advantage of this?: map:pipeline

RE: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Hunsberger, Peter
Stephan Coboos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christopher Oliver wrote: Um, how much harder is this: map:match pattern=listProducts map:generate type=file src=products.xml/ map:call function=readProductBeans/ /map:match map:match pattern=listProducts-result-pipeline

RE: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Ralph Goers
, 2004 2:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline Therefore I wrote why not using flowscript like actions?

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-26 Thread Torsten Curdt
If you really want to use JavaScript in an action instead of Java, write an action (in Java) that calls an arbitrary JavaScript function. Maybe that's what BSF does, I don't know. We already have a ScriptAction in the BSF block cheers -- Torsten

Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-25 Thread Stephan Coboos
Hello, in some discussions I'd heard that actions and XSP should be more and more replaced by flowscript. I think, this is a good idea because flowscript is a good way to integrate logic parts into an application. But with one thing I cant agree. Why shouldn't it be possible to return to the

RE: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-25 Thread Ralph Goers
] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 1:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Flowscript and return to pipeline Hello, in some discussions I'd heard that actions and XSP should be more and more replaced by flowscript. I think, this is a good idea because flowscript is a good way

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-25 Thread Christopher Oliver
Stephan Coboos wrote: Hello, in some discussions I'd heard that actions and XSP should be more and more replaced by flowscript. I think, this is a good idea because flowscript is a good way to integrate logic parts into an application. But with one thing I cant agree. Why shouldn't it be

RE: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-25 Thread Antonio Gallardo
Ralph Goers dijo: I don't mean to start any kind of flame war here and the following is strictly my opinion. Actually the statement below is the exact reason I and my colleagues are reticent to use flowscript. I have no problem with using flowscript to manage a couple of pages that are

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-25 Thread Stephan Coboos
Ralph Goers wrote: I don't mean to start any kind of flame war here and the following is strictly my opinion. Actually the statement below is the exact reason I and my colleagues are reticent to use flowscript. I have no problem with using flowscript to manage a couple of pages that are linked

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-25 Thread Antonio Gallardo
Stephan Coboos dijo: Ralph Goers wrote: I don't mean to start any kind of flame war here and the following is strictly my opinion. Actually the statement below is the exact reason I and my colleagues are reticent to use flowscript. I have no problem with using flowscript to manage a couple of

Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline

2004-02-25 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Le Jeudi, 26 fév 2004, à 01:14 Europe/Zurich, Ralph Goers a écrit : ...I have no problem with using flowscript to manage a couple of pages that are linked together (i.e. - a form to fill out followed by a confirmation page). But using it for more than this violates the separation of concerns