> From: Christopher Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I modified the FOM implementation in the scratchpad to make the FOM
> available to the view layer, thinking that the view author
> also should
> see the FOM (See FOM_JavaScriptFlowHelper.java), rather than the raw
> Request, Response, etc. Do others agree with this?
The same is valid for the view layer as explained from you below!
You can still pass parameters to generators or transformers of pipelines
called by the flow layer.
Additionally you can call pipelines that contain actions. Do we want
this?
I'm worried that people start to work around the restrictions of the FOM
...
>
> I also modified the GarbageGenerator to use the FOM.
>
> So because of the FOM you can't do this in a flow script anymore:
>
> cocoon.request.sitemapURI
>
> likewise in a Garbage view template you can no longer do this:
>
> <page whatever="{$request/sitemapURI}">
>
> in both cases because the FOM doesn't expose the "sitemapURI"
> property
> of the Request.
>
> However the input modules give full access to the original
> Java Request
> object, so in the sitemap you can still do this:
>
> <map:call function="whatever">
> <map:parameter name="whatever" value="{request:sitemapURI}"/>
>
> and pass it as a parameter to your flowscript, bypassing the FOM (!)
>
> This seems inconsistent to me. What do others think?
Yes, you are right! Maybe we should disable input module substituion
within
call elements of the sitemap. (I don't know if this is possible at all.)
What do you think?
Reinhard
