> So I think we should clearly separate the FOM (the JS wrapper of the OM)
> from the FAPI, the flowscript API which gathers flowscript-related
> utility functions by attaching them for a new "flowscript" object.
>
> We would therefore have:
> - cocoon.request, cocoon.context, cocoon.mymodule, etc.
> - flowscript.sendPageAndWait(), flowscript.getComponent(),
> flowscript.redirect(), etc.
sounds good to me ...one tiny thing though:
I'd prefer the name "flow" ...so
flow.sendPageAndWait(),
flow.getComponent(),
flow.redirect()
With javaflow the whole "script" naming scheme does not
really fit ...even if you get a script-like behaviour
with the compiling classloader ...IMO
WDYT?
cheers
--
Torsten
|