Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <3FE8002B.4030907@outerthought.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:43:23 +0100
From: Marc Portier <mpo@outerthought.org>
Organization: Outerthought
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: code ethics on js-java integration
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yo people,

after the recent introduction of the WoodyPipelineConfig object, I am 
tempted to change the line 125 in woody2.js

see: 
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/woody/java/org/apache/cocoon/woody/flow/javascript/woody2.js?rev=1.3&view=auto
for:    bizData["woody-form"] = this.form;

towards:

bizData[Packages.org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation.WoodyPipelineConfig.WOODY_FORM] 
= this.form;

this is a natural reflex from pure Java land, but I'm left to doubth now 
it this kind of more tight integration is desirable into the js-area?

conceptually I only see benefits in doing so ATM, but maybe there are 
some other considerations that I'm missing? (e.g. performance penalty? 
lack of cross language refactoring tools? ...)

regards,
-marc=
-- 
Marc Portier                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at                http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/
mpo@outerthought.org                              mpo@apache.org