Re: [Actionframework-users] using invoke

[Craig L. <cr...@be...>]

On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 17:06, Mark D. Anderson wrote:
> > for my money, i think its cleaner to simply have no order requirement
> > for invoke/output-variable elements.
>=20
> You mean, as enforced by the dtd?
> What does order mean?

currently, the dtd forces output-variable elements followed by invoke
elements, as such:

  <!ELEMENT template (output-variable*, invoke*)>

so you can't have:

 <template xxx>
  <invoke xxx/>
  <output-variable xxx/>
 </template>

that's what i mean by order.

i'm saying that i don't think it makes sense to force it to be in that
order.  petr indicated that i could do it like this:

 <template xxx>
  <invoke xxx>
   <output-variable xxx/>
  </invoke>
 </template>

to achieve the same effect, having the invoke element processed before
the output-variable one.

my comment is i don't like that as much as the first example, i think
one should be allowed to mix output-variable and invoke elements.

> Is the declaration order in xml supposed to support dependencies in
> expressions on variables declared earlier?

i'm not exactly sure of what you mean by 'support dependencies'.  i do
think that the order in which elements appear inside another element is
important.  if i have:

 <template xxx>
  <invoke name=3D"x1" xxx/>
  <invoke name=3D"x2" xxx/>
  <invoke name=3D"x3" xxx/>
 </template>

i expect x1 to be evaluated, then x2 and finally x3, likewise i mixed
invoke and output-variable elements, i would expect those to be
evaluated in order of appearance to.

however, if i screwed up in the previous example and made the x1 invoke
use a variable named x3 in its method call, i wouldn't expect the xml
parser/actionservlet to fix that for me, that's my fault.

make sense?

--=20

     CraigL->Thx();
     Be Developer ID: 5852