Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
It will be easy to add
* <dt>flowContinuation (xxxx)</dt> * <dt>flowBean (xxxx)</dt>
And these should be valid values, right?
Yes, it will be easy. But if that was all there was to it, I wouldn't have needed to create FlowVelocityGenerator in the first place. When using the flow layer I _only_ want to pass the bean object and continuation to the Velocity template, not the request, not the response, not the context, and not the parameters.
Here you will have to explain to me why: Why whould you want to pass *only* this "bean"?
And I still have question why don't you put this bean into request attributes? And why have such bean in the first place, why not just use request/session/application attributes?
And also, how you will access session-fw data if you won't pass session object? Same for xscript data and request/session/context objects?
And last one, why VelocityGenerator must be the only one ... hm ... crippled by the absence of request/session/etc?
Hope it's not too many questions :)
Vadim
Actually, what I really want is for the properties of the bean object to be properties of the Velocity context. I didn't see an easy way of doing that and maintaining backward compatibility. That is why I created FlowVelocityGenerator.
Regards,
Chris
