cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: Difference between FOM_Session and REal Session?
Date Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:46:35 GMT
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:

> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
>> oceatoon wrote:
>>
>>> Why step away from the global session though,
>>> and create a new FOM_session structure? your answer was "design 
>>> decision
>>> but I don't understand, why ?
>>
>> Neither do I, it wasn't my decison but Chris Olivers. One reason 
>> might be that flow uses a special embedinging of the request object 
>> etc to make them easy to use in Java script,
>
> FOM's FOM_Cocoon / FOM_Request / etc objects are results of conscious 
> community effort to define FOM (Flow Object Model), all its objects, 
> and all methods on those objects. You will notice that not all methods 
> of underlying Cocoon Request / Response / etc API were exposed, and 
> this was done for a reason.

Thanks for reminding.

> IIRC, see archives for thread "less is more".
>
I searched the archives and found lots of discussions about it but not 
any summary of the actual decision.

The goal is to have the FOM view from JXTG available in other places in 
Cocoon, e.g. in an ExpressionModule. To achive this I used Carsten's 
TemplateObjectModelHelper, that makes the same object available as the 
FOM in flowscript. But it does that through a reflection based "dynamic 
map" instead of by implementing the interface in a JS friendly way as in 
the flowscript implementation.This makes, if I understand you right more 
methods available than it should. Is that important? What do yo think we 
should do about it?

/Daniel



Mime
View raw message