Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Torsten Curdt wrote:
So I think we should clearly separate the FOM (the JS wrapper of the OM) from the FAPI, the flowscript API which gathers flowscript-related utility functions by attaching them for a new "flowscript" object.
We would therefore have:
- cocoon.request, cocoon.context, cocoon.mymodule, etc.
- flowscript.sendPageAndWait(), flowscript.getComponent(), flowscript.redirect(), etc.
sounds good to me ...one tiny thing though: I'd prefer the name "flow" ...so
flow.sendPageAndWait(), flow.getComponent(), flow.redirect()
Why not cocoon.flow....? Do we really need another entry-point?
Because everything cocoon.xxx should be OM or IM (or only IM, as you suggested), and be the same everywhere. Having different properties attached to the cocoon object is what currently confuses people. At least this is my understanding.
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
