Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 64154 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2006 23:16:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Oct 2006 23:16:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 84780 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2006 23:16:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-users-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 84715 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2006 23:16:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: users@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 84700 invoked by uid 99); 9 Oct 2006 23:16:50 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [209.237.227.194] (HELO [127.0.0.1]) (209.237.227.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:16:49 -0700 Message-ID: <452A76AD.20701@apache.org> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:19:57 +0200 From: Carsten Ziegeler User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: environment abstraction in Cocoon 2.2 References: <6DD7194CCE91BB44A41318EA7D06151070ED3E@pegasus.olympus.borgus.nl> <4526F05D.4090208@gmx.de> <4526F9F2.4040109@gmx.de> <501089280610070543n44079747s527a3a1cb12ff8ea@mail.gmail.com> <45297757.2050007@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <45297757.2050007@gmx.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Joerg Heinicke schrieb: > Wondering about your problem I had a look into the code - and the > environment abstraction indeed still exists. I thought it already has > been removed. I send this mail to dev list too, maybe somebody can > comment on this (Daniel, Carsten ?) > Yes, we still use the environment abstraction - mainly for compatibility. We had some discussion in the past to switch to the servlet req/response interfaces etc. While this is the right move, it creates big incompatibilities. So we either have to support two apis in parallel or wait until 3.0. There are several problems with our abstraction; one of them is that we use our own apis (we can create wrappers for this to directly use the http servlet api) - but the other problem is that we are not using the request attributes to store additional request information. Unfortunately everything is stored in the objectModel map, e.g. the flow context etc. And even more: the request is an object stored in the objectModel. I think we have to change this as well and add all request relevant information as attributes of the request object. This would then allow to easily use other techniques/frameworks - like you could then just forward your request from Cocoon flow to a JSP doing the rendering. But just adding all this stuff to request attributes is not that easy as unfortunately sub request are sharing the attributes with the main request. So whenever you use the cocoon protocol the main request and the sub request use the same set of attributes. I hoped to solve these problems for 2.2 but I never had a good idea - but it's something we should definitly work on for the next releases. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@cocoon.apache.org