You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Tim Olson <to...@marketingforce.com> on 2004/04/19 18:44:27 UTC
RE: [RT] Use of flowscript or the pyramid of contracts (was Re:
[RT] Checked exceptions considered harmful)
> > Yes, we habe FOM. The difference to the sitemap is that the sitemap
> > enforces the contract while flow doesn't.
>
> One drastic approach would be to stop flow from being able to access
> java at all, if not thru FOM. I would be in favor of that
> once we have
> the real block system running, but at that point it might
> well be too late.
we already have a nice system of flow helper methods to access entity beans
and pump them into XML. we use flow to select which components are needed
when, and the contract with our GUI designers is XML. we were already burnt
quite badly when sendPage() became a requirement, since we were using flow
to merely select actions and the sitemap had all of our branching. we are
now unable to upgrade past 2.1.2 without major refactoring which honestly we
can't afford to do.
you theoreticians seem all too willing to break production systems to
enforce your latest notion of best practices.
Re: [RT] Use of flowscript or the pyramid of contracts (was Re:
[RT] Checked exceptions considered harmful)
Posted by Guido Casper <gc...@s-und-n.de>.
Tim Olson wrote:
>>>Yes, we habe FOM. The difference to the sitemap is that the sitemap
>>>enforces the contract while flow doesn't.
>>
>>One drastic approach would be to stop flow from being able to access
>>java at all, if not thru FOM. I would be in favor of that
>>once we have
>>the real block system running, but at that point it might
>>well be too late.
>
>
> we already have a nice system of flow helper methods to access entity beans
> and pump them into XML. we use flow to select which components are needed
> when, and the contract with our GUI designers is XML. we were already burnt
> quite badly when sendPage() became a requirement, since we were using flow
> to merely select actions and the sitemap had all of our branching. we are
> now unable to upgrade past 2.1.2 without major refactoring which honestly we
> can't afford to do.
> you theoreticians seem all too willing to break production systems to
> enforce your latest notion of best practices.
Tim, don't take the word for everything said in a RT thread and don't
worry that access to Java will be disabled in the 2.x branch (if ever)
as this certainly would break any production system running on with flow.
Guido
--
Guido Casper
-------------------------------------------------
S&N AG, Competence Center Open Source
Tel.: +49-5251-1581-87
Klingenderstr. 5 mailto:gcasper@s-und-n.de
D-33100 Paderborn http://www.s-und-n.de
-------------------------------------------------
Re: [RT] Use of flowscript or the pyramid of contracts (was Re:
[RT] Checked exceptions considered harmful)
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Tim Olson wrote:
> you theoreticians seem all too willing to break production systems to
> enforce your latest notion of best practices.
we "theoreticians" wouldn't have given you the things that you are using
right now and that you are happy with.
btw, this is an open community and open to criticism, so if you want,
just make a proposal and we'll discuss it.
--
Stefano.