> From: Stefano Mazzocchi
<skip/>
> Chris suggests we release 2.1 without bothering the FOM because it
> will need time to adjust anyway. I agree, but what really worries me
> is the fact that we *already* know it's going to change radically and
> releasing such a bad contract is not going to be good publicity for
> cocoon in general from contract solidity perspective.
>
> you can mark it as beta as much as you like, but people are going to
> discover it, fall in love with it, use it for testing, then pressured
> by their bosses, put it in production, then ask support for it, or at
> least a back compatibility layer.
>
> Do you really want to force our users to go thru this? I don't.
That's exactly the point! The flow needs users that implement it in many
real life projects to make it stable from an implementation point of
view (altough I think it _is_ already very stable.). But this needs a
stable interface (FOM) because otherwise many users will hesitate to use
it in production and I learned in the past that only real life problems
can really challange a new concept or technology.
And additionally I'm +1 for the evolutionary approach small to big
because it makes it easier to maintain your application in the future.
- o -
So let's try to finish the FOM!
First I summarized the agreed points here:
[http://wiki.cocoondev.org/Wiki.jsp?page=FOM]
And after looking through the latest discussion of the FOM the open
points are:
- Component loading
Object getComponent(id) -> obtains the component indicated by the
given ID
Here
[http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105405317918849&w=2]
Stefano wrote: "Obviously, the flow will not have access to *all*
components,
but only to components that will be 'flow-available'."
Stefano, could you elaborate on this?
How would you make a component flow-available? How does this avoid
the
possible abuse of the control flow?
- stateful components -> how to release them?
There have been two mails:
RR:
[http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105464984417883&w=2]
SW:
[http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105472379523896&w=2]
Are there any more thoughts about this?
- Should the flow _always_ be associated with a Session?
- void callAction(name,map) -> invoques the action indicated by the
given name
and pass the given map as model
Is there anybody against removing it? Is there a real need for it?
I would say we should remove it and point people asking for
it to
[http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105407572313285&w=2].
And if we want we can decide to add it to the FOM at every time ...
- Context
Which methods are available? Especially do we need setAttribute(
name, value )?
see:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105405579422169&w=2
And here some points that have not been discussed yet (or overlooked by
me):
- What has happened with the continuation object? Don't we need it any
more?
- Do we need access to the modules? Or is the prefered way using
getComponent( id ) in the future?
Are there any other open points?
Reinhard
PS: My time is very limited at the moment but I'm willing to help as
much as (and if) I can!
