On 5/3/03 15:02, "Hunsberger, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip on how Pier arrived at the following:/>
>
>> What I would love to have, before even touching the flow
>> _implementation_, is a consistent language-unaware definition
>> of the object model that flow scripts will live into, define
>> bindings from this object model to JavaScript, so that we all
>> know what we are _supposed_ to implement, why, where and when.
>>
>
> Yes please! But while you are at it, don't you really want to define a
> complete Cocoon object model and not just one for flow (I think that's maybe
> what you're already doing?)?
I don't have 3 months to document that _WHOLE_ thing! :-)
> Part of the issue is, where does work flow,
> and business logic fit into the big picture. It's pretty clear that there
> are things we don't want in "flow" as such, but we need to know where they
> do fit in the "big picture": all of Cocoon needs to hit the same object
> model, not just flow...
Well, the flow impacts heavily Cocoon at this point because until now we've
used Java (which is almost self-documenting)... Now we're adding another
language in the core, and, hmm, hacks are harder to spot...
Pier
