cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leszek Gawron <lgaw...@mobilebox.pl>
Subject Re: [RFC] JXTG Refactoring
Date Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:46:27 GMT
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> Leszek Gawron wrote:
> 
>> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> 
> <snip/>
> 
>>> In a next step the cache object should be factored out from the 
>>> ExecutionContext and replaced by some kind of script manager, so that 
>>> we can have the code that compiles and caches the scripts at one place.
>>
>>
>> I am on it if you haven't already started it.
> 
> 
> Nice! No I tried to commit the things that I have been working on 
> dirrectly to decrease the risk of collisions with your work. Don't know 
> if that succeded, at least I was first ;)
> 
> My focus is to continue working on factoring out the tag code from the 
> parser and invoker to the tag classes. I want them to become completely 
> independent of JXTG specific stuff.
> 
> If you have any possiblity to add test cases for the tags I would 
> appriciate that very much.
Ok. I'll get into that.

> 
> Concerning the strange difference between cocoon.request and request I 
> have some slight remembrance that it has been discussed on the list and 
> that it was deliberate. But I don't remember the reason and I have not 
> been able to find the relevant posts.
There are two things whiche are not consistent:
- request vs. cocoon.request. The latter does not work if you do not
   have a flowscript controller up front.
- parameters vs. cocoon.parameters. First one is visible as Parameters,
   second one as Properties. so:
   ${parameters.param1} does not work !{cocoon.parameters.param1} does.
   ${parameters.getParameter('param1', 'default') is a proper syntax for
    passing a default value
   ${cocoon.parameters.getProperty('param1', 'default'} should do the
    same for cocoon.parameters.

I haven't checked yet if there are issues with session.

> As the use of request etc without cocoon prefix is deprecated, I don't 
> think there is any reasons to support it in our template work that 
> probably is directed to 2.2. So if no one protest I think we should 
Is it? As the cocoon.request does not work in all cases this is hard to 
believe this decision has been made.

-- 
Leszek Gawron                                      lgawron@mobilebox.pl
Project Manager                                    MobileBox sp. z o.o.
+48 (61) 855 06 67                              http://www.mobilebox.pl
mobile: +48 (501) 720 812                       fax: +48 (61) 853 29 65

Mime
View raw message