From dev-return-70712-apmail-cocoon-dev-archive=cocoon.apache.org@cocoon.apache.org Tue Jan 25 12:03:14 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 93859 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2005 12:03:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2005 12:03:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 59433 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jan 2005 12:03:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 59351 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jan 2005 12:03:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 59335 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jan 2005 12:03:08 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of ap-cocoon-dev@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender) Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO main.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:03:08 -0800 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CtPPV-0004Ox-00 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:03:05 +0100 Received: from dyn-212-83-173-87.ppp.tiscali.fr ([212.83.173.87]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:03:05 +0100 Received: from eric.burghard by dyn-212-83-173-87.ppp.tiscali.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:03:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: dev@cocoon.apache.org From: BURGHARD =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=C9ric?= Subject: Re: sitemap, jx and flow design (was: servicemanager and jxtg) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:03:35 +0100 Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <41F279A6.7020704@nada.kth.se> <41F37683.9090203@nada.kth.se> <41F3EDFE.70505@nada.kth.se> <41F52D15.2060809@apache.org> <41F5EF03.6000404@apache.org> <41F61393.9030209@nada.kth.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dyn-212-83-173-87.ppp.tiscali.fr User-Agent: KNode/0.8.2 Sender: news X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Daniel Fagerstrom wrote: > Instruction Access > ================== > > What objects should instructions and macros be able to access? Curently > for the needs of the JXTG instructions, the instructions has access to a > ExpressionContext that contains the FOM "view" that is available in > expressions in JXTG. They also have access to an ExecutionContext that > currently contains a script manager and a map with macros, we might need > a SourceResolver also. There are also some other stuff that not are > relevant for the current discussion. > > The questions are: > > * Should the ExecutionContext also contain a ServiceManager? > > * Should the ExpressionContext also contain a ServiceManager? (makes the > ServiceManager available in expressions) > > IMO the ExecutionContext should have access to the ServiceManager and > the ExpressionContext shouldn't. > WDYT? > > Both the above question might be suitable for votes, but I think they > need more discussion about them before we do that. > -1 if we can pass dom (perhaps bean too) with pipeline parameter (see my answer to stefano). +1 otherwise. What about starting defining a functionnal macros API, so that cforms could plug properly in jx ? > /Daniel