cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <vadim.gritse...@verizon.net>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Continuation in objectModel, Was: Discussion of Flow Issues
Date Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:04:28 GMT
Christopher Oliver wrote:

> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:


>> It will be easy to add
>>
>> * <dt>flowContinuation (xxxx)</dt>
>> * <dt>flowBean (xxxx)</dt>
>>
>> And these should be valid values, right?
>
>
> Yes, it will be easy. But if that was all there was to it, I wouldn't 
> have needed to create FlowVelocityGenerator in the first place. When 
> using the flow layer I _only_ want to pass the bean object and 
> continuation to the Velocity template, not the request, not the 
> response, not the context, and not the parameters.


Here you will have to explain to me why: Why whould you want to pass 
*only* this "bean"?

And I still have question why don't you put this bean into request 
attributes? And why have such bean in the first place, why not just use 
request/session/application attributes?

And also, how you will access session-fw data if you won't pass session 
object? Same for xscript data and request/session/context objects?

And last one, why VelocityGenerator must be the only one ... hm ... 
crippled by the absence of request/session/etc?

Hope it's not too many questions :)

Vadim


> Actually, what I really want is for the properties of the bean object 
> to be properties of the Velocity context. I didn't see an easy way of 
> doing that and maintaining backward compatibility. That is why I 
> created FlowVelocityGenerator.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris




Mime
View raw message