Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
On that point, I proposed to write a new implementation of the
flowscript implementation. This is certainly not a total rewrite, but
a refactoring of the existing code to have an overally consistent
object model, and also introduce a "flow" object that would separate
the flow-specific operations out of the "cocoon" object that should
be the common base for the object model, and therefore be identical
in all places (flow, templates, form event listeners, etc).
Would be nice!
Having thought a little bit more about it I think that we, for the
moment, just should make JXTG compatible with flow and independent of
it. I take care of that if not anyone else feel like doing it. Then we
can discuss refactorings, deprecation of confusing behaviour etc. But
we need to support the behaviour of JXTG from 2.1 in 2.2 even if we
hopefully can deprecate some stuff.
Agree. IIRC, we also talked to have a new CTemplate generator, which
could actually be the next-generation JXTG, working consistently with
the refactored flow engine. Both being new components could concentrate
on overall consistency without caring about backwards compatibility,
whereas the existing classes whould have to ensure this compatibility.
Exactly! We had some discussion about what CForms should contain in
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110942300500004&r=1&w=2. It should IMO
also contain the converters that we discussed half a year ago
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=109941988300003&r=1&w=2.
/Daniel
