Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <41F237E3.9050708@apache.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:24:19 +0100
From: Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: WishFull thinking JX and SessionContext Authentication
References: <csrfka$lku$1@sea.gmane.org> <41F14560.9080100@apache.org>
 <41F17A62.4060600@mobilebox.pl>
In-Reply-To: <41F17A62.4060600@mobilebox.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Leszek Gawron wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> 
>> oceatoon wrote:
>>
>>> This is wishfull thinking and probably no news to those refactoring 
>>> JX. But
>>> access to the session context object like the session-context input 
>>> module
>>> would be great (like for example with the authentication context). I 
>>> have
>>> found other post asking about and for this sort of functionality. it 
>>> would
>>> smoothen quite a bit the access to such inportant elements as the 
>>> ones in
>>> session-context (like authentication data).
>>>
>> Yes, this should be possible, I agree. I hope that the refactored 
>> version will be pluggable to plug-in some kind of adapter to access 
>> "own data" like the authentication context etc.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better if JXTG supported input modules with syntax like:
> 
> {im:moduleName:valueName}
> 
> ?
Don't know :) Sure, this is one solution - my idea is a little bit 
different:
we could provide a pluggable object model and then use this object model 
in jxtg,
but also in input modules - so in fact you would only need one input 
module and can use the same syntax there as in jxtg. I'm not sure if 
this makes sense, but if it does, we wouldn't need input modules anymore.

Carsten