Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)

[Sylvain Wallez]

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

I personally would remove this syntactic sugar completly; it's imho 
not intuitiv what it means and the inconsistent implementation adds 
to it.
In addition it would make our unified object model implementation 
(for flow, jxtg etc.) much easier as we don't have to simulate this 
in Java.

Unfortunately, I fear that this is common use, so let's deprecate it 
with 2.1.x and remove for 2.2 completly

agree :-)
We have the same functionality in flow, e.g. you can get the value of 
a widget using the model with "model.WIDGETID". I think we should 
deprecate (and remove) this as well.

Yep. We have form.model that gives access to a JS-specific API of 
widgets which does have its set of inconsistencies.

Can you start a formal vote about it?

Yup.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain           http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }