cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Haul <>
Subject Re: More on FOM
Date Tue, 01 Jul 2003 11:52:23 GMT
On 30.Jun.2003 -- 10:29 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Ricardo Rocha wrote:
> >Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >
> >>Ricardo Rocha wrote:
> >>
> >Imo, the flow renders actions (and modules outside the sitemap) 
> >unnecessary, so we shouldn't encourage their continued use by 
> >providing FOM-level support for them. The idea, in the long term, is 
> >to stop using actions (and xsp's, for that matter) in favor of the flow.
> >
> >That said, *indirect* access to modules and actions would satisfy 
> >short-term, transitional requests to allow reuse of such "legacy" 
> >components from the flow (if only by popular demand :-)). 
> Ok. So we allow some abuse to satify transition of legacy applications 
> or code.

I'm happy with the suggested legacy.js in conjunction with the changes
needed with regard to the object model.

Nag : I still believe that creating a new, cut-down request, session,
properties, cookie object for flow is unwise and we'd be better off
ripping them out and go through modules instead.  That would simplify
the FOM a lot and yet would be more powerful.

C h r i s t i a n       H a u l
    fingerprint: 99B0 1D9D 7919 644A 4837  7D73 FEF9 6856 335A 9E08

View raw message