cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylv...@apache.org>
Subject Re: FOM & FAPI (wasRe: FOM & input modules)
Date Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:08:10 GMT
Torsten Curdt wrote:

>> 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?


You're falling in the same trap again ;-)

Why should the flowscript API and javaflow API be the same? In javaflow, 
you have access to Avalon-related data such as the service manager and 
therefore don't need flow{script}.getComponent().

So the FSAPI (flowscript API) should be defined separately from the 
JFAPI (javaflow API), even if they share some concepts and/or function 
names related to the fact that they both manage flow, such as 
sendPageAndWait().

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