cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <cziege...@s-und-n.de>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Date Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:05:50 GMT
This context is a map containing key value pairs, it contains some
"global" information (paths etc.) and e.g. the object model.
So even if we would move away from avalon we could have this
map without breaking compatibility here. 
That's why I'm against "avalonContext". 
We already have cocoon.context, couldn't we make things
available from there?

Carsten 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sylvain Wallez [mailto:sylvain@apache.org] 
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:47 PM
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
> 
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> 
> >Sylvain Wallez wrote: 
> >  
> >
> >>- [ ] to remove restrictions on existing objects.
> >>    
> >>
> >+1
> >  
> >
> >>- [ ] to add cocoon.avalonContext.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >-1 for the name "avalonContext". I think we should avoid 
> references to Avalon whereever possible. Otherwise perhaps we 
> have to rename it in the future.
> >So, +1 if a different name is used.
> >  
> >
> 
> Well, how to name it since this *is* the Avalon context? I 
> mean if one day we totally move away from Avalon, that object 
> will naturally disappear. With some back compatibility 
> problems, of course, but there will also be many others in 
> many other places in our code.
> 
> Or something like "frameworkContext" or "containerContext"? 
> Sure, it avoids the Avalon name but IMO doesn't clearly 
> indicate what it is about.
> 
> Sylvain
> 
> -- 
> Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies
> http://www.apache.org/~sylvain           http://www.anyware-tech.com
> { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message