Antonio Gallardo wrote:
AFAIK, in a webapp you can also review the authentication and authorization:
...
Uh? Don't you use continuations to handle login and automagically return
the expected initial response when the user successfully authenticate
Stephan Coboos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christopher Oliver wrote:
>
> > Um, how much harder is this:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes we had tried this solution, too. But we have much more
> flowscripts
> than only readProductBeans and for each one w
ebruary 26, 2004 2:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Flowscript and return to pipeline
Therefore I wrote "why not using flowscript like actions"?
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
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Stephan Coboos dijo:
is more easier to understand than this:
Did you already saw the advantage of this?:
No matter how they will try to go to "second" they MUST go through
"first". I like this feature of flow. :-D
Yes,
Leszek Gawron wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:22:12AM +0100, Stephan Coboos wrote:
I think a solution like this:
is more easier to understand than this:
ok, this is possible, too:
Not easier to understand at all as you are mixing concerns. With 2 line
Stephan Coboos dijo:
> is more easier to understand than this:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Did you already saw the advantage of this?:
No matter how they will try to go to "second" they MUST go through
"first". I like this feature of flow. :-D
AFAIK,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:22:12AM +0100, Stephan Coboos wrote:
> I think a solution like this:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> is more easier to understand than this:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ok, this is possible, too:
>
>
>
>
>
>
Not easier to understand at all as you are mixi
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
conveni
Stephan Coboos dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>We already have to this. With 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 wa
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
We already have to this. With 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
makes it much more co
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 pri
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
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 to
Christopher Oliver wrote:
Um, how much harder is this:
Yes we had tried this solution, too. But we have much more flowscripts
than only readProductBeans and for each one we have to split our
pipeline. Therefore the sitemap will become a unreadable size. The other
point is, if y
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
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 possi
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 together (i.e. - a f
18 matches
Mail list logo
