Re: JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)]
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:15:00 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The simple fact that we have to elaborate such strategies IMO reveals
> that there's a problem. This problem comes from the fact that a dynamic
> property space (request parameters, map entries, etc) is merged with a
> static property space (coming from the Java object), and that's why I
> proposed an additional static property to hold the dynamic space.
>
> In the case of request, this leads to both "request.parameters" and
> "request.attributes" as we have two dynamic property spaces.
>
> In the case of Map, this could be "map.entries", i.e. you would write
> "map.entries.foo" instead of map.get("foo"). But we can also consider
> that Map is of a special kind as it is nothing but a dynamic property
> space for Java. In that very particular case, we could reverse the
> scheme and have the dynamic space be the main property space (i.e.
> "map.foo") and have the actual Map methods be accessed through a single
> special property, e.g. "map.__obj__.size()". Mmmh...
I really like the dynamic property spaces for request attributes in
parameters, but when talking about a Map, honestly, I don't think
there is a clean solution. The former ".entries" idea is even more
verbose than the regular get() method, and the latter strategy is
similar to the "fn_" prefix but with the additional (admittedly
infrequent) problem of retrieving a property called "__obj__", not to
mention being more difficult to access extended properties and
functions.
>
> >That said, this is not an issue for the wrapper around List.
> >
>
> Yes, because a List's dynamic property space is defined by numbers (the
> index), and there is therefore no overlapping between the regular
> object's properties and the ones added by the special wrapper.
>
> >I wrote
> >a framework so you can add properties and methods to Java API's in a
> >generic way, and I use this to, among other things, add a "length"
> >property to any object that implements Collection to make it more
> >consistant with what one would expect to use with a JS array. My
> >favorite use of extension functions is to add closure functions such
> >as File.eachLine(func).
> >
> >
>
> That's groovy, in all meanings of it ;-)
Indeed as that was the inspiration - wanting the nice Java integration
and extensions of Groovy but with a mature, continuations-capable
scripting language. As I mentioned, I'm writing this keeping it clean
of Struts and chain constructs so it could be used in Cocoon if you
folks were interested, by moving it to a commons project.
Don
>
> Sylvain
>
> --
> Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
> http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
> { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
>
>
Re: JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)]
Don Brown wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:16:23 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is actually similar to ServletRequest.getParameterMap() in servlet
2.4 which we do not have on our Request interface. But we should not
introduce special wrappers for Map as proposed recently by the
Struts-flow guy (need to make an answer and point him to this
discussion) as we would just be moving the problem one level deeper:
what would "map.size" mean if it contains a "size" entry?
As I see it, there are two ways to solve this problem:
1. Use ordering ie function, property so function calls are used first
(or vice versa)
2. Use a special function prefix to ensure functions are called. In
my implementation, I have an optional "fn_" which can be used to
ensure you are calling a function and it cannot be overridden. Any
prefix should, of course, be able to be turned off or changed.
The simple fact that we have to elaborate such strategies IMO reveals
that there's a problem. This problem comes from the fact that a dynamic
property space (request parameters, map entries, etc) is merged with a
static property space (coming from the Java object), and that's why I
proposed an additional static property to hold the dynamic space.
In the case of request, this leads to both "request.parameters" and
"request.attributes" as we have two dynamic property spaces.
In the case of Map, this could be "map.entries", i.e. you would write
"map.entries.foo" instead of map.get("foo"). But we can also consider
that Map is of a special kind as it is nothing but a dynamic property
space for Java. In that very particular case, we could reverse the
scheme and have the dynamic space be the main property space (i.e.
"map.foo") and have the actual Map methods be accessed through a single
special property, e.g. "map.__obj__.size()". Mmmh...
That said, this is not an issue for the wrapper around List.
Yes, because a List's dynamic property space is defined by numbers (the
index), and there is therefore no overlapping between the regular
object's properties and the ones added by the special wrapper.
I wrote
a framework so you can add properties and methods to Java API's in a
generic way, and I use this to, among other things, add a "length"
property to any object that implements Collection to make it more
consistant with what one would expect to use with a JS array. My
favorite use of extension functions is to add closure functions such
as File.eachLine(func).
That's groovy, in all meanings of it ;-)
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)]
As an aside, I thought more about it and decided approach #1 was
better and less confusing so I switched Struts Flow to that. I still
believe the map wrapper provides value as it works great for quick
lookups and for..in usage. It also allows for the aforementioned
extensions like a "length" property.
Don
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:07:58 -0800, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:16:23 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is actually similar to ServletRequest.getParameterMap() in servlet
> > 2.4 which we do not have on our Request interface. But we should not
> > introduce special wrappers for Map as proposed recently by the
> > Struts-flow guy (need to make an answer and point him to this
> > discussion) as we would just be moving the problem one level deeper:
> > what would "map.size" mean if it contains a "size" entry?
>
> As I see it, there are two ways to solve this problem:
>
> 1. Use ordering ie function, property so function calls are used first
> (or vice versa)
> 2. Use a special function prefix to ensure functions are called. In
> my implementation, I have an optional "fn_" which can be used to
> ensure you are calling a function and it cannot be overridden. Any
> prefix should, of course, be able to be turned off or changed.
>
> That said, this is not an issue for the wrapper around List. I wrote
> a framework so you can add properties and methods to Java API's in a
> generic way, and I use this to, among other things, add a "length"
> property to any object that implements Collection to make it more
> consistant with what one would expect to use with a JS array. My
> favorite use of extension functions is to add closure functions such
> as File.eachLine(func).
>
> Don
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >> The multiple expression languages are also a problem, especially if
> > >> you consider that each one has its own preferred way of expressing
> > >> things. Starting from one single class, you have to learn not only
> > >> the standard mapping to Java objects provided by each language, but
> > >> also all the different specific mappings provided for each of the
> > >> object model objects. IMO a nightmare for users.
> > >>
> > > Exactly, that's why I still think we should use one expression
> > > language :)
> >
> > I would love to, but really don't think this is realistic. We need one
> > language for objects and one language for XML documents. JXPath can
> > theoretically handle both, but using XPath when the controller and
> > business logic use objects is very unnatural...
> >
> > > Now, before we start some votes on something that has perhaps not
> > > properly discussed before, we should really take some time and think
> > > about:
> > >
> > > 1) What the best way of accessing the information is
> > > 2) Then: what this means in term of compatibility and migration
> > > 3) Then: provide an easy way for users to update their code (if required)
> > >
> > > But imho we shouldn't mix these concerns.
> > >
> > > For 1:
> > > I think an explicit addressing is the way to go, so e.g. you use
> > > getParameter("name") in Flow and request.parameters.name in jxtg and
> > > so on. In my understanding using object in flow and in Java should be
> > > very similar as in many cases you are using both worlds and it's a
> > > nightmare to switch between different apis.
> >
> > IMO, we should be able to use the same dotted syntax in flow and jxtg.
> > And we can decide that this syntax is JS, which may solve many problems
> > by using a single scripting language everywhere.
> >
> > But, again, I really think we should also have XPath in jxtg as well.
> > Maybe as a function-like syntax such as "xpath(doc, '/a/b/c')", which
> > would answer your concern of having a single expression language.
> >
> > Sylvain
> >
> > --
> > Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
> > http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
> > { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
> >
> >
>
Re: JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)]
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:16:23 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is actually similar to ServletRequest.getParameterMap() in servlet
> 2.4 which we do not have on our Request interface. But we should not
> introduce special wrappers for Map as proposed recently by the
> Struts-flow guy (need to make an answer and point him to this
> discussion) as we would just be moving the problem one level deeper:
> what would "map.size" mean if it contains a "size" entry?
As I see it, there are two ways to solve this problem:
1. Use ordering ie function, property so function calls are used first
(or vice versa)
2. Use a special function prefix to ensure functions are called. In
my implementation, I have an optional "fn_" which can be used to
ensure you are calling a function and it cannot be overridden. Any
prefix should, of course, be able to be turned off or changed.
That said, this is not an issue for the wrapper around List. I wrote
a framework so you can add properties and methods to Java API's in a
generic way, and I use this to, among other things, add a "length"
property to any object that implements Collection to make it more
consistant with what one would expect to use with a JS array. My
favorite use of extension functions is to add closure functions such
as File.eachLine(func).
Don
>
> >
> >
> >> The multiple expression languages are also a problem, especially if
> >> you consider that each one has its own preferred way of expressing
> >> things. Starting from one single class, you have to learn not only
> >> the standard mapping to Java objects provided by each language, but
> >> also all the different specific mappings provided for each of the
> >> object model objects. IMO a nightmare for users.
> >>
> > Exactly, that's why I still think we should use one expression
> > language :)
>
> I would love to, but really don't think this is realistic. We need one
> language for objects and one language for XML documents. JXPath can
> theoretically handle both, but using XPath when the controller and
> business logic use objects is very unnatural...
>
> > Now, before we start some votes on something that has perhaps not
> > properly discussed before, we should really take some time and think
> > about:
> >
> > 1) What the best way of accessing the information is
> > 2) Then: what this means in term of compatibility and migration
> > 3) Then: provide an easy way for users to update their code (if required)
> >
> > But imho we shouldn't mix these concerns.
> >
> > For 1:
> > I think an explicit addressing is the way to go, so e.g. you use
> > getParameter("name") in Flow and request.parameters.name in jxtg and
> > so on. In my understanding using object in flow and in Java should be
> > very similar as in many cases you are using both worlds and it's a
> > nightmare to switch between different apis.
>
> IMO, we should be able to use the same dotted syntax in flow and jxtg.
> And we can decide that this syntax is JS, which may solve many problems
> by using a single scripting language everywhere.
>
> But, again, I really think we should also have XPath in jxtg as well.
> Maybe as a function-like syntax such as "xpath(doc, '/a/b/c')", which
> would answer your concern of having a single expression language.
>
> Sylvain
>
> --
> Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
> http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
> { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
>
>
Re: JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)]
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
And that's what I call, maybe not adequately, "inconsistencies".
Consider the JS wrapper for the request object. It has a "remoteUser"
property because of the request.getRemoteUser() method. Now what
happens if "http://foo/bar?remoteUser=root"; is called? Your
application is fooled in believing that a super user issued the
resquest!!
The result of this is that you always have to refrain using the
properties in favor of method calls in order to be really sure of
what data you access, and therefore loose the apparent simplicity of
properties.
Yepp - I totally agree - it's absolutely not visible anymore what
"request.remoteUser" really means - it's hard to understand and
maintain this code.
An acceptable JS wrapper, less verbose that the standard Java/JS
mapping would be one that clearly separates the various property
spaces, e.g. "request.parameters.foo". But implementing this causes
other problems (see below).
Can you expand on this please?
If we consider the request object, we have 3 property spaces:
1 - the JavaBean property space, which exposes e.g.
"request.getRemoteUser()" as "request.remoteUser"
2 - the parameter space, accessed using "request.getParameter("foo")"
3 - the attribute space, accessed using "request.getAttribute("bar")".
I agree that using method call notation is more verbose than using the
dotted property notation. The problem is that currently we have either
the second or third spaces merged with the first one, hence the problems
examplified with remoteUser. Worse, space 3 is merged with space 1 on
session and context, and it's space 2 that is merged with space 1 on the
request. Confusing.
So a way to still benefit from the simple dotted notation is to have
each property space attached to a different object. The first space is
kept attached to the request object itself (normal Java to JS mapping),
and we can introduce additional JS properties that hold the other
property spaces.
Hence "request.parameters.foo" and "request.attributes.bar". The
additional "parameters" and "attributes" property allow to clearly
disambiguate what property space we're referring to.
This is actually similar to ServletRequest.getParameterMap() in servlet
2.4 which we do not have on our Request interface. But we should not
introduce special wrappers for Map as proposed recently by the
Struts-flow guy (need to make an answer and point him to this
discussion) as we would just be moving the problem one level deeper:
what would "map.size" mean if it contains a "size" entry?
The multiple expression languages are also a problem, especially if
you consider that each one has its own preferred way of expressing
things. Starting from one single class, you have to learn not only
the standard mapping to Java objects provided by each language, but
also all the different specific mappings provided for each of the
object model objects. IMO a nightmare for users.
Exactly, that's why I still think we should use one expression
language :)
I would love to, but really don't think this is realistic. We need one
language for objects and one language for XML documents. JXPath can
theoretically handle both, but using XPath when the controller and
business logic use objects is very unnatural...
Now, before we start some votes on something that has perhaps not
properly discussed before, we should really take some time and think
about:
1) What the best way of accessing the information is
2) Then: what this means in term of compatibility and migration
3) Then: provide an easy way for users to update their code (if required)
But imho we shouldn't mix these concerns.
For 1:
I think an explicit addressing is the way to go, so e.g. you use
getParameter("name") in Flow and request.parameters.name in jxtg and
so on. In my understanding using object in flow and in Java should be
very similar as in many cases you are using both worlds and it's a
nightmare to switch between different apis.
IMO, we should be able to use the same dotted syntax in flow and jxtg.
And we can decide that this syntax is JS, which may solve many problems
by using a single scripting language everywhere.
But, again, I really think we should also have XPath in jxtg as well.
Maybe as a function-like syntax such as "xpath(doc, '/a/b/c')", which
would answer your concern of having a single expression language.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)]
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
And that's what I call, maybe not adequately, "inconsistencies".
Consider the JS wrapper for the request object. It has a "remoteUser"
property because of the request.getRemoteUser() method. Now what happens
if "http://foo/bar?remoteUser=root"; is called? Your application is
fooled in believing that a super user issued the resquest!!
The result of this is that you always have to refrain using the
properties in favor of method calls in order to be really sure of what
data you access, and therefore loose the apparent simplicity of properties.
Yepp - I totally agree - it's absolutely not visible anymore what
"request.remoteUser" really means - it's hard to understand and maintain
this code.
An acceptable JS wrapper, less verbose that the standard Java/JS mapping
would be one that clearly separates the various property spaces, e.g.
"request.parameters.foo". But implementing this causes other problems
(see below).
Can you expand on this please?
>
The multiple expression languages are also a problem, especially if you
consider that each one has its own preferred way of expressing things.
Starting from one single class, you have to learn not only the standard
mapping to Java objects provided by each language, but also all the
different specific mappings provided for each of the object model
objects. IMO a nightmare for users.
Exactly, that's why I still think we should use one expression language :)
Now, before we start some votes on something that has perhaps not
properly discussed before, we should really take some time and think about:
1) What the best way of accessing the information is
2) Then: what this means in term of compatibility and migration
3) Then: provide an easy way for users to update their code (if required)
But imho we shouldn't mix these concerns.
For 1:
I think an explicit addressing is the way to go, so e.g. you use
getParameter("name") in Flow and request.parameters.name in jxtg and so
on. In my understanding using object in flow and in Java should be very
similar as in many cases you are using both worlds and it's a nightmare
to switch between different apis.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)]
Christopher Oliver wrote:
Sorry to pick on Sylvain again, but he consistently exhibits a common
behavior of Java programmers with respect to JavaScript. Because JS
syntax is so similar to Java they seem to feel a JS API is somehow
"better" the more it resembles what it would look like if it was written
in Java.
The "special wrapper" objects in the FOM served two purposes:
1) The enforced the FOM contracts which were voted on by the Cocoon
community (note that although I implemented it I did _not_ define those
contracts).
2) They made the underlying Cocoon Java API (Request, Session, etc)
easier to access in JS (and in Jexl whose syntax is identical to JS).
It should be obvious by looking at the history of JSP (which migrated
from plain Java to the JSTL EL (implementd by Jexl). that a JS like
approach can be preferable to Java in some cases.
Opinions may vary, but to me JS is _actually_ a different language than
Java and and an API that is provided in both languages should not be
required to be identical in every respect (e.g. JavaFlow versus JS flow,
Java DOM versus JS DOM, etc).
Sylvain describes these differences as "inconsistencies", however I
rather regard them as appropriate differences given the target languages
(which in the case of JS will be appreciated by experienced JS
programmers).
At any rate, I fail to understand how a massively non-backward
compatible change can be made which was not even relevant to the subject
voted on.
yes please, can we discuss this again (with a final vote) as I'm not really
convinced about the pros of this change.
As I understand it there was a vote to "unrestrict" the FOM, thereby
removing the contracts from (2) above. AFAIK this could have been
implemented easily without causing backward incompatibility in accessing
the FOM from JS/Jexl/JXPath.
This change forces our users to rewrite their templates too?!?!?
My $0.02,
Thanks you as I would have overlooked this ... (too much traffic on this
list)
BTW, nice to see you back from time to time :-)
--
Reinhard Pötz Independant Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
Re: JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)]
Christopher Oliver wrote:
Sorry to pick on Sylvain again, but he consistently exhibits a common
behavior of Java programmers with respect to JavaScript. Because JS
syntax is so similar to Java they seem to feel a JS API is somehow
"better" the more it resembles what it would look like if it was
written in Java.
The "special wrapper" objects in the FOM served two purposes:
1) The enforced the FOM contracts which were voted on by the Cocoon
community (note that although I implemented it I did _not_ define
those contracts).
2) They made the underlying Cocoon Java API (Request, Session, etc)
easier to access in JS (and in Jexl whose syntax is identical to JS).
It should be obvious by looking at the history of JSP (which migrated
from plain Java to the JSTL EL (implementd by Jexl). that a JS like
approach can be preferable to Java in some cases.
Opinions may vary, but to me JS is _actually_ a different language
than Java and and an API that is provided in both languages should not
be required to be identical in every respect (e.g. JavaFlow versus JS
flow, Java DOM versus JS DOM, etc).
Sylvain describes these differences as "inconsistencies", however I
rather regard them as appropriate differences given the target
languages (which in the case of JS will be appreciated by experienced
JS programmers).
The inconsistencies are not in the language itself, but IMO in the way
it has been used from day one in browsers, and which has "infected" its
use everywhere else afterwards.
This problem is that it's rather common practice in JS to mix properties
coming from different naming contexts on a single object. Consider the
object in HTML: it has a submit() function which submits the
form. It also has properties added for all form input.
Now what happens if your form has an ? You can no
more call form.submit() as the function property has been replaced by
the HTMLInputElement object. I've hit this several times and spent hours
finding out why my form wasn't working.
And that's what I call, maybe not adequately, "inconsistencies".
Consider the JS wrapper for the request object. It has a "remoteUser"
property because of the request.getRemoteUser() method. Now what happens
if "http://foo/bar?remoteUser=root"; is called? Your application is
fooled in believing that a super user issued the resquest!!
The result of this is that you always have to refrain using the
properties in favor of method calls in order to be really sure of what
data you access, and therefore loose the apparent simplicity of properties.
An acceptable JS wrapper, less verbose that the standard Java/JS mapping
would be one that clearly separates the various property spaces, e.g.
"request.parameters.foo". But implementing this causes other problems
(see below).
At any rate, I fail to understand how a massively non-backward
compatible change can be made which was not even relevant to the
subject voted on.
As I understand it there was a vote to "unrestrict" the FOM, thereby
removing the contracts from (2) above. AFAIK this could have been
implemented easily without causing backward incompatibility in
accessing the FOM from JS/Jexl/JXPath.
The multiple expression languages are also a problem, especially if you
consider that each one has its own preferred way of expressing things.
Starting from one single class, you have to learn not only the standard
mapping to Java objects provided by each language, but also all the
different specific mappings provided for each of the object model
objects. IMO a nightmare for users.
My $0.02,
Thanks for them. It led me to expand on my reasons for this change.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE]Unrestricting the FOM)]
Chris:
The name JavaScript was just a good marketing meme and the reason why
Netscape choosed this name for this language called Javascript.
I agree with you. Recently I found a lot of changes to java-zation of the
JS Flow code. I see too much verbosity in the "new" changes. The reason to
not like them. I prefer to have less code to write. If Javascript allow me
it. I am happy using the real Javascript features. ;-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
On Sab, 26 de Febrero de 2005, 16:34, Christopher Oliver dijo:
> Sorry to pick on Sylvain again, but he consistently exhibits a common
> behavior of Java programmers with respect to JavaScript. Because JS
> syntax is so similar to Java they seem to feel a JS API is somehow
> "better" the more it resembles what it would look like if it was written
> in Java.
>
> The "special wrapper" objects in the FOM served two purposes:
>
> 1) The enforced the FOM contracts which were voted on by the Cocoon
> community (note that although I implemented it I did _not_ define those
> contracts).
> 2) They made the underlying Cocoon Java API (Request, Session, etc)
> easier to access in JS (and in Jexl whose syntax is identical to JS).
>
> It should be obvious by looking at the history of JSP (which migrated
> from plain Java to the JSTL EL (implementd by Jexl). that a JS like
> approach can be preferable to Java in some cases.
>
> Opinions may vary, but to me JS is _actually_ a different language than
> Java and and an API that is provided in both languages should not be
> required to be identical in every respect (e.g. JavaFlow versus JS flow,
> Java DOM versus JS DOM, etc).
>
> Sylvain describes these differences as "inconsistencies", however I
> rather regard them as appropriate differences given the target languages
> (which in the case of JS will be appreciated by experienced JS
> programmers).
>
> At any rate, I fail to understand how a massively non-backward
> compatible change can be made which was not even relevant to the subject
> voted on.
>
> As I understand it there was a vote to "unrestrict" the FOM, thereby
> removing the contracts from (2) above. AFAIK this could have been
> implemented easily without causing backward incompatibility in accessing
> the FOM from JS/Jexl/JXPath.
>
> My $0.02,
>
> Chris
>
>
>>Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mie, 9 de Febrero de 2005, 12:06, Sylvain Wallez dijo:
>>>
>>>
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi team,
>>
>>Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004).
>>
>>cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session
>>are now unrestricted.
>>
>>The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper
>>is used for request, response and context that shows their respective
>>attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but
>>that's how they have been since the beginning).
>>
>>This closes a lot of open bugs ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>Great! Why do we need this special wrapper?
>
>
Because removing it means a backwards incompatible change!
It adds small syntactic sugar by allowing you to write
'cocoon.session.blah' instead of 'cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")'
and the same on request and context.
I personally didn't knew about it until today and therefore never used
it...
>>>
>>>I thought in the form flow samples is. The construction is often used to
>>>test request params. ;-)
>>>
>>>ie: cocoon.request.myButton
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Oh f*ck, that's even worse than I thought. It now returns the request
>>*attributes* because I was fooled by the implementation of FOM_Request
>>which was buggy: getIds() which lists the object's properties was
>>considering *attribute* names just as FOM_Session and FOM_Context, but
>>get() which actually gets a property was considering *parameter* names.
>>
>>What that means is that (before today's change):
>>- cocoon.context.blah == cocoon.context.getAttribute("blah")
>>- cocoon.session.blah == cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")
>>- cocoon.request.blah == cocoon.request.getParameter("blah") and not
>>cocoon.request.getAttribute("blah").
>>
>>This is clearly inconsistent.
>>
>>Furthermore, I really don't like this naming scope filled from different
>>sources (the object itself and some other data), especially when one of
>>the sources comes from the browser.
>>
>>And what about conflicts? Fortunately the object is searched before
>>request parameters, otherwise this would be a nice security hole.
>>
>>So, what do we do? Do we keep this inconsistent behaviour, deprecate it,
>>remove it now?
>>
>>WDYT?
>>
>>Sylvain
>>
>
JS versus Java [was Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)]
Sorry to pick on Sylvain again, but he consistently exhibits a common
behavior of Java programmers with respect to JavaScript. Because JS
syntax is so similar to Java they seem to feel a JS API is somehow
"better" the more it resembles what it would look like if it was written
in Java.
The "special wrapper" objects in the FOM served two purposes:
1) The enforced the FOM contracts which were voted on by the Cocoon
community (note that although I implemented it I did _not_ define those
contracts).
2) They made the underlying Cocoon Java API (Request, Session, etc)
easier to access in JS (and in Jexl whose syntax is identical to JS).
It should be obvious by looking at the history of JSP (which migrated
from plain Java to the JSTL EL (implementd by Jexl). that a JS like
approach can be preferable to Java in some cases.
Opinions may vary, but to me JS is _actually_ a different language than
Java and and an API that is provided in both languages should not be
required to be identical in every respect (e.g. JavaFlow versus JS flow,
Java DOM versus JS DOM, etc).
Sylvain describes these differences as "inconsistencies", however I
rather regard them as appropriate differences given the target languages
(which in the case of JS will be appreciated by experienced JS programmers).
At any rate, I fail to understand how a massively non-backward
compatible change can be made which was not even relevant to the subject
voted on.
As I understand it there was a vote to "unrestrict" the FOM, thereby
removing the contracts from (2) above. AFAIK this could have been
implemented easily without causing backward incompatibility in accessing
the FOM from JS/Jexl/JXPath.
My $0.02,
Chris
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mie, 9 de Febrero de 2005, 12:06, Sylvain Wallez dijo:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Hi team,
Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004).
cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session
are now unrestricted.
The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper
is used for request, response and context that shows their respective
attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but
that's how they have been since the beginning).
This closes a lot of open bugs ;-)
Great! Why do we need this special wrapper?
Because removing it means a backwards incompatible change!
It adds small syntactic sugar by allowing you to write
'cocoon.session.blah' instead of 'cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")'
and the same on request and context.
I personally didn't knew about it until today and therefore never used
it...
I thought in the form flow samples is. The construction is often used to
test request params. ;-)
ie: cocoon.request.myButton
Oh f*ck, that's even worse than I thought. It now returns the request
*attributes* because I was fooled by the implementation of FOM_Request
which was buggy: getIds() which lists the object's properties was
considering *attribute* names just as FOM_Session and FOM_Context, but
get() which actually gets a property was considering *parameter* names.
What that means is that (before today's change):
- cocoon.context.blah == cocoon.context.getAttribute("blah")
- cocoon.session.blah == cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")
- cocoon.request.blah == cocoon.request.getParameter("blah") and not
cocoon.request.getAttribute("blah").
This is clearly inconsistent.
Furthermore, I really don't like this naming scope filled from different
sources (the object itself and some other data), especially when one of
the sources comes from the browser.
And what about conflicts? Fortunately the object is searched before
request parameters, otherwise this would be a nice security hole.
So, what do we do? Do we keep this inconsistent behaviour, deprecate it,
remove it now?
WDYT?
Sylvain
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
I found time to update the SVN version and an application that works fine
using the lastest SVN version seems to be broken.
I added 2 lines in javascript flow code for test:
cocoon.log.error("name=" + cocoon.request.name);
cocoon.log.error("name=" + cocoon.request.getParameter("name"));
And the result is:
name=undefined
name=antonio
Then the original "cocoon.request.name" is not working anymore. It was
simply a very big poof! ;-)
Seriously, can you review the change just to deprecate it. :-)
Ooops, I'll fix that ASAP.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
On Jue, 10 de Febrero de 2005, 7:51, Sylvain Wallez dijo:
> oceatoon wrote:
>
Hmm... the problems is that "cocoon.request.blah" was released and
maybe
is used is used (by us and other people?) in a lot of places and maybe
other peopl! :-(
>>Sorry for peecking into this post but till today I thought
>>cocoon.request.blah was a normal call, and seemed quite natural ;) in a
>>users perspective. I do use it massively.
>>
>>So the correct way of doing this would be
>>cocoon.request.getParameter("blah") then ?
>>
>>
>
> Exactly. Don't know yet how/if parameters will be available as
> properties in the future, but for sure cocoon.request.getParameter()
> will always work.
>
>>before it blows off with 2.2
>>
>>
>
> Poof :-)
What a big poof! It reached 2.1.7-dev!!! ;-)
I found time to update the SVN version and an application that works fine
using the lastest SVN version seems to be broken.
I added 2 lines in javascript flow code for test:
cocoon.log.error("name=" + cocoon.request.name);
cocoon.log.error("name=" + cocoon.request.getParameter("name"));
And the result is:
name=undefined
name=antonio
Then the original "cocoon.request.name" is not working anymore. It was
simply a very big poof! ;-)
Seriously, can you review the change just to deprecate it. :-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
>
> Sylvain
>
> --
> Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
> http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
> { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
>
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
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 }
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
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. Can you start a formal vote about it? Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Sylvain Wallez wrote: I mean not tied to a class that provides other features than deprecation logging. And the "Cocoon" class provides so much more ;-) Hence the specific Deprecation class below, which will of course be in the org.apache.cocoon package hierarchy. Ok: +1 - I would choose a different name than Deprecation (DeprecationUtil or DeprecationLogger), but that's not that important. Choose whatever you think is best. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
oceatoon wrote:
Hmm... the problems is that "cocoon.request.blah" was released and maybe
is used is used (by us and other people?) in a lot of places and maybe
other peopl! :-(
Sorry for peecking into this post but till today I thought
cocoon.request.blah was a normal call, and seemed quite natural ;) in a
users perspective. I do use it massively.
So the correct way of doing this would be
cocoon.request.getParameter("blah") then ?
Exactly. Don't know yet how/if parameters will be available as
properties in the future, but for sure cocoon.request.getParameter()
will always work.
before it blows off with 2.2
Poof :-)
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Thinking further, I don't think we should attach this to the Cocoon
object as we may want to use this in classes also used outside the
Cocoon machinery.
Outside the Cocoon machinery? What do you mean by this?
I mean not tied to a class that provides other features than deprecation
logging. And the "Cocoon" class provides so much more ;-)
Hence the specific Deprecation class below, which will of course be in
the org.apache.cocoon package hierarchy.
So what about a dedicated o.a.c.util.Deprecation class?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
>>Hmm... the problems is that "cocoon.request.blah" was released and maybe
>>is used is used (by us and other people?) in a lot of places and maybe
>>other peopl! :-(
Sorry for peecking into this post but till today I thought
cocoon.request.blah was a normal call, and seemed quite natural ;) in a
users perspective. I do use it massively.
So the correct way of doing this would be
cocoon.request.getParameter("blah") then ?
before it blows off with 2.2
Thanks
Tibor
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Sylvain Wallez wrote: Thinking further, I don't think we should attach this to the Cocoon object as we may want to use this in classes also used outside the Cocoon machinery. Outside the Cocoon machinery? What do you mean by this? So what about a dedicated o.a.c.util.Deprecation class? Sylvain -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Now with all this deprecated stuff floating around, we should have a
centralized deprecation Logger so that users can easily be informed
of the deprecated features they use (in the case of Javascript,
there's no compiler warning like in Java).
That would make a new log file (e.g. deprecated.log), but IMO that
one deserves to exist.
Yes, and we should really try to add *all* "deprecated log messages"
there.
And punish those that fail to use it once it's in place ;-)
Where can we put that deprecation logger? What comes to mind is
either the Avalon Context, or a component, i.e. lookup(Logger.ROLE +
"deprecated").
WDYT?
I think this should be as simple as possible. What about a static
accessor, e.g. on the Core object? You might want to use this logger
where you don't want to either implement Serviceable nor
Contextualizable, so imho it should be easier.
Yeah, I thought about a static accessor also, but I'm fearing some
problems with classloading. Well, if any such problem arises, we'll be
able to solve it withing the accessor's code.
So let's go for Cocoon.getDeprecationLogger().
Thinking further, I don't think we should attach this to the Cocoon
object as we may want to use this in classes also used outside the
Cocoon machinery.
So what about a dedicated o.a.c.util.Deprecation class?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Now with all this deprecated stuff floating around, we should have a
centralized deprecation Logger so that users can easily be informed
of the deprecated features they use (in the case of Javascript,
there's no compiler warning like in Java).
That would make a new log file (e.g. deprecated.log), but IMO that
one deserves to exist.
Yes, and we should really try to add *all* "deprecated log messages"
there.
And punish those that fail to use it once it's in place ;-)
Where can we put that deprecation logger? What comes to mind is
either the Avalon Context, or a component, i.e. lookup(Logger.ROLE +
"deprecated").
WDYT?
I think this should be as simple as possible. What about a static
accessor, e.g. on the Core object? You might want to use this logger
where you don't want to either implement Serviceable nor
Contextualizable, so imho it should be easier.
Yeah, I thought about a static accessor also, but I'm fearing some
problems with classloading. Well, if any such problem arises, we'll be
able to solve it withing the accessor's code.
So let's go for Cocoon.getDeprecationLogger().
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Carsten Ziegeler wrote: I think this should be as simple as possible. What about a static accessor, e.g. on the Core object? I meant the Cocoon object here (we are talking about 2.1.x). > You might want to use this logger where you don't want to either implement Serviceable nor Contextualizable, so imho it should be easier. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Sylvain Wallez wrote: Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Sylvain Wallez wrote: This is clearly inconsistent. Yepp Furthermore, I really don't like this naming scope filled from different sources (the object itself and some other data), especially when one of the sources comes from the browser. And what about conflicts? Fortunately the object is searched before request parameters, otherwise this would be a nice security hole. So, what do we do? Do we keep this inconsistent behaviour, deprecate it, remove it now? WDYT? 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 :-) Now with all this deprecated stuff floating around, we should have a centralized deprecation Logger so that users can easily be informed of the deprecated features they use (in the case of Javascript, there's no compiler warning like in Java). That would make a new log file (e.g. deprecated.log), but IMO that one deserves to exist. Yes, and we should really try to add *all* "deprecated log messages" there. Where can we put that deprecation logger? What comes to mind is either the Avalon Context, or a component, i.e. lookup(Logger.ROLE + "deprecated"). WDYT? I think this should be as simple as possible. What about a static accessor, e.g. on the Core object? You might want to use this logger where you don't want to either implement Serviceable nor Contextualizable, so imho it should be easier. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mie, 9 de Febrero de 2005, 13:58, Sylvain Wallez dijo:
Oh f*ck, that's even worse than I thought. It now returns the request
*attributes* because I was fooled by the implementation of FOM_Request
which was buggy: getIds() which lists the object's properties was
considering *attribute* names just as FOM_Session and FOM_Context, but
get() which actually gets a property was considering *parameter* names.
What that means is that (before today's change):
- cocoon.context.blah == cocoon.context.getAttribute("blah")
- cocoon.session.blah == cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")
- cocoon.request.blah == cocoon.request.getParameter("blah") and not
cocoon.request.getAttribute("blah").
This is clearly inconsistent.
Furthermore, I really don't like this naming scope filled from different
sources (the object itself and some other data), especially when one of
the sources comes from the browser.
And what about conflicts? Fortunately the object is searched before
request parameters, otherwise this would be a nice security hole.
It was "carefully" designed. ;-)
Flowscript is a nice invention, but custom JS wrappings have been used
in weird ways...
So, what do we do? Do we keep this inconsistent behaviour, deprecate it,
remove it now?
Hmm... the problems is that "cocoon.request.blah" was released and maybe
is used is used (by us and other people?) in a lot of places and maybe
other peopl! :-(
I think the best is to keep the 2.1.x "as is" and perhas deprecate it in
the next (2.1.7) release and remove it in 2.2.
Yep. Sounds reasonable.
[Antonio while typing, pausing to answer customer's questions by phone saw
that Sylvain already fixed the problem. Antonio is very happy and wants to
test the last change.]
...
Anyway, you are faster than me! I already saw the last patch. I will check
if it is working now as expected. Mr. Incredible, thanks for you time! ;-)
Well, I don't have that much time for Cocoon development lately
(although I'm using it for very fancy stuff), but one thing I really
hate is leaving bugs unfixed in what I wrote once I've identified them ;-)
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Le 9 févr. 05, à 21:27, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit : ...Unfortunately, I fear that this is common use, so let's deprecate it with 2.1.x and remove for 2.2 completly +1 -Bertrand smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
This is clearly inconsistent.
Yepp
Furthermore, I really don't like this naming scope filled from
different sources (the object itself and some other data), especially
when one of the sources comes from the browser.
And what about conflicts? Fortunately the object is searched before
request parameters, otherwise this would be a nice security hole.
So, what do we do? Do we keep this inconsistent behaviour, deprecate
it, remove it now?
WDYT?
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 :-)
Now with all this deprecated stuff floating around, we should have a
centralized deprecation Logger so that users can easily be informed of
the deprecated features they use (in the case of Javascript, there's no
compiler warning like in Java).
That would make a new log file (e.g. deprecated.log), but IMO that one
deserves to exist.
Where can we put that deprecation logger? What comes to mind is either
the Avalon Context, or a component, i.e. lookup(Logger.ROLE + "deprecated").
WDYT?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
On Mie, 9 de Febrero de 2005, 13:58, Sylvain Wallez dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>>On Mie, 9 de Febrero de 2005, 12:06, Sylvain Wallez dijo:
>>
>>
>>>Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>Hi team,
>
>Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004).
>
>cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session
>are now unrestricted.
>
>The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper
>is used for request, response and context that shows their respective
>attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but
>that's how they have been since the beginning).
>
>This closes a lot of open bugs ;-)
>
>
>
Great! Why do we need this special wrapper?
>>>Because removing it means a backwards incompatible change!
>>>
>>>It adds small syntactic sugar by allowing you to write
>>>'cocoon.session.blah' instead of 'cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")'
>>>and the same on request and context.
>>>
>>>I personally didn't knew about it until today and therefore never used
>>>it...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I thought in the form flow samples is. The construction is often used to
>>test request params. ;-)
>>
>>ie: cocoon.request.myButton
>>
>>
>
> Oh f*ck, that's even worse than I thought. It now returns the request
> *attributes* because I was fooled by the implementation of FOM_Request
> which was buggy: getIds() which lists the object's properties was
> considering *attribute* names just as FOM_Session and FOM_Context, but
> get() which actually gets a property was considering *parameter* names.
>
> What that means is that (before today's change):
> - cocoon.context.blah == cocoon.context.getAttribute("blah")
> - cocoon.session.blah == cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")
> - cocoon.request.blah == cocoon.request.getParameter("blah") and not
> cocoon.request.getAttribute("blah").
>
> This is clearly inconsistent.
>
> Furthermore, I really don't like this naming scope filled from different
> sources (the object itself and some other data), especially when one of
> the sources comes from the browser.
>
> And what about conflicts? Fortunately the object is searched before
> request parameters, otherwise this would be a nice security hole.
It was "carefully" designed. ;-)
> So, what do we do? Do we keep this inconsistent behaviour, deprecate it,
> remove it now?
Hmm... the problems is that "cocoon.request.blah" was released and maybe
is used is used (by us and other people?) in a lot of places and maybe
other peopl! :-(
I think the best is to keep the 2.1.x "as is" and perhas deprecate it in
the next (2.1.7) release and remove it in 2.2.
...
[Antonio while typing, pausing to answer customer's questions by phone saw
that Sylvain already fixed the problem. Antonio is very happy and wants to
test the last change.]
...
Anyway, you are faster than me! I already saw the last patch. I will check
if it is working now as expected. Mr. Incredible, thanks for you time! ;-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Sylvain Wallez wrote: This is clearly inconsistent. Yepp Furthermore, I really don't like this naming scope filled from different sources (the object itself and some other data), especially when one of the sources comes from the browser. And what about conflicts? Fortunately the object is searched before request parameters, otherwise this would be a nice security hole. So, what do we do? Do we keep this inconsistent behaviour, deprecate it, remove it now? WDYT? 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 Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Hi team,
Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004).
cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session
are now unrestricted.
The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper
is used for request, response and context that shows their respective
attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but
that's how they have been since the beginning).
This closes a lot of open bugs ;-)
Great! Why do we need this special wrapper?
Because removing it means a backwards incompatible change!
It adds small syntactic sugar by allowing you to write
'cocoon.session.blah' instead of 'cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")'
and the same on request and context.
I personally didn't knew about it until today and therefore never used
it...
Lovely.
--
Stefano.
FOM inconsistency (was Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM)
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mie, 9 de Febrero de 2005, 12:06, Sylvain Wallez dijo:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Hi team,
Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004).
cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session
are now unrestricted.
The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper
is used for request, response and context that shows their respective
attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but
that's how they have been since the beginning).
This closes a lot of open bugs ;-)
Great! Why do we need this special wrapper?
Because removing it means a backwards incompatible change!
It adds small syntactic sugar by allowing you to write
'cocoon.session.blah' instead of 'cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")'
and the same on request and context.
I personally didn't knew about it until today and therefore never used
it...
I thought in the form flow samples is. The construction is often used to
test request params. ;-)
ie: cocoon.request.myButton
Oh f*ck, that's even worse than I thought. It now returns the request
*attributes* because I was fooled by the implementation of FOM_Request
which was buggy: getIds() which lists the object's properties was
considering *attribute* names just as FOM_Session and FOM_Context, but
get() which actually gets a property was considering *parameter* names.
What that means is that (before today's change):
- cocoon.context.blah == cocoon.context.getAttribute("blah")
- cocoon.session.blah == cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")
- cocoon.request.blah == cocoon.request.getParameter("blah") and not
cocoon.request.getAttribute("blah").
This is clearly inconsistent.
Furthermore, I really don't like this naming scope filled from different
sources (the object itself and some other data), especially when one of
the sources comes from the browser.
And what about conflicts? Fortunately the object is searched before
request parameters, otherwise this would be a nice security hole.
So, what do we do? Do we keep this inconsistent behaviour, deprecate it,
remove it now?
WDYT?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Great! Why do we need this special wrapper?
Because removing it means a backwards incompatible change!
Sounds familiar ;)
It adds small syntactic sugar by allowing you to write
'cocoon.session.blah' instead of 'cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")'
and the same on request and context.
Ah, right - thanks.
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On Mie, 9 de Febrero de 2005, 12:06, Sylvain Wallez dijo:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi team,
>>>
>>> Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004).
>>>
>>> cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session
>>> are now unrestricted.
>>>
>>> The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper
>>> is used for request, response and context that shows their respective
>>> attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but
>>> that's how they have been since the beginning).
>>>
>>> This closes a lot of open bugs ;-)
>>>
>> Great! Why do we need this special wrapper?
>
>
> Because removing it means a backwards incompatible change!
>
> It adds small syntactic sugar by allowing you to write
> 'cocoon.session.blah' instead of 'cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")'
> and the same on request and context.
>
> I personally didn't knew about it until today and therefore never used
> it...
I thought in the form flow samples is. The construction is often used to
test request params. ;-)
ie: cocoon.request.myButton
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Hi team,
Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004).
cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session
are now unrestricted.
The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper
is used for request, response and context that shows their respective
attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but
that's how they have been since the beginning).
This closes a lot of open bugs ;-)
Great! Why do we need this special wrapper?
Because removing it means a backwards incompatible change!
It adds small syntactic sugar by allowing you to write
'cocoon.session.blah' instead of 'cocoon.session.getAttribute("blah")'
and the same on request and context.
I personally didn't knew about it until today and therefore never used it...
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Sylvain Wallez wrote: Hi team, Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004). cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session are now unrestricted. The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper is used for request, response and context that shows their respective attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but that's how they have been since the beginning). This closes a lot of open bugs ;-) Great! Why do we need this special wrapper? Carsten
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:32:28 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session are > >>now unrestricted. > >> > >>The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper is > >>used for request, response and context that shows their respective > >>attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but that's > >>how they have been since the beginning). > >> > >>This closes a lot of open bugs ;-) > > This is in both releases (committing in 2.2 right now). > Great. Now all we need is a 2.1.x release. (Hint, hint...) -- Peter Hunsberger
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:05:26 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi team,
Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004).
cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session are
now unrestricted.
The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper is
used for request, response and context that shows their respective
attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but that's
how they have been since the beginning).
This closes a lot of open bugs ;-)
Many thanks!
Is this in 2.2 only? If so, any chance that this will show up in a 2.1.x branch?
If it's in 2.1.x can we get a release some time real soon pretty please?
This is in both releases (committing in 2.2 right now).
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:05:26 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi team, > > Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004). > > cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session are > now unrestricted. > > The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper is > used for request, response and context that shows their respective > attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but that's > how they have been since the beginning). > > This closes a lot of open bugs ;-) Many thanks! Is this in 2.2 only? If so, any chance that this will show up in a 2.1.x branch? If it's in 2.1.x can we get a release some time real soon pretty please? -- Peter Hunsberger
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Hi team,
Several months later, it's done (the vote started on 14-06-2004).
cocoon.request, cocoon.response, cocoon.context and cocoon.session are
now unrestricted.
The only difference with the real objects is that a special wrapper is
used for request, response and context that shows their respective
attributes are JS properties (not sure I personally like it, but that's
how they have been since the beginning).
This closes a lot of open bugs ;-)
Sylvain
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Hi all,
More and more, the limitations of objects provided by the FOM seem
like arbitrary constraints that go in the way of people and produce
confusion. Furthermore, these restrictions only apply to the JS
flowscript and not to JavaFlow, thus making JS flowscript a second
zone citizen compared to Java code.
That's why I propose to remove these restrictions my having
cocoon.request, cocoon.response and cocoon.context providing the full
API defined by the interfaces in org.apache.cocoon.environment.
Furthermore, I propose to add cocoon.avalonContext to provide access
to the various data held by this object.
More background on this subject is available in the "Less is more...
or less" discussion [1] and my answer to Jeremy's problem [2] that
shows how simple it is to workaround the restricted FOM.
Please cast your votes!
- [ ] to remove restrictions on existing objects.
- [ ] to add cocoon.avalonContext.
Sylvain
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=107995167207822&w=2
[2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=108716209403338&w=2
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On 15 Jun 2004, at 18:04, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Jeremy Quinn wrote: Should I hold back on committing my changes to make ContextHelper Contextualizable, to wait to see what comes out of this proposal ? Wait a bit ;-) You can still use the ContextAccess class in your own source tree, though. I am almost ready to commit the new Query Bean, and samples. I am planning on adding it to the Lucene Block, with my classes in org.apache.cocoon.bean.query. While waiting for a resolution of the FOM issue discussed in this thread, I would need to add: org.apache.cocoon.bean.query.ContextAccess as a temporary solution to getting an AvalonContext from within a FlowScript. Does anyone have an issue with this? Thanks regards Jeremy If email from this address is not signed IT IS NOT FROM ME Always check the label, folks ! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Makes sense. And migrating some stuff to the env-context may
help removing some dependencies on Avalon. But whe have to be
very careful about what attributes we want to move from
avalon-context to env-context, and be sure they will still
make sense in a new container and within blocks.
Yepp.
The only point I'm not sure about is the object model: should
it be in the env-context, since it also contains that
env-context? Kind of circular dependency that may be confusing...
Yepp, that's true. I would say we leave this in the avalon
context then.
If we do that, we can't totally cut the dependency on avalon-context...
What we need actually is some kind of mini-environment that
would give access only to the "safe" properties of
o.a.c.e.Environment, i.e. mainly the object model and
attributes, plus access to the current avalon-context
attributes through type-safe getter methods.
Actually, this mini-environment is the object model. Too bad it's
currently an untyped Map. Or what about creating an ObjectModel class
that would be that mini-environment ?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On 15 Jun 2004, at 18:04, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Jeremy Quinn wrote: Should I hold back on committing my changes to make ContextHelper Contextualizable, to wait to see what comes out of this proposal ? Wait a bit ;-) You can still use the ContextAccess class in your own source tree, though. OK BTW. I think there may be a related issue here with a problem noted a while ago, where it was not possible to read parameters setup in web.xml as expected using : org.apache.cocoon.environment.Context.getInitParameter(String name) Unless Cocoon was 'expecting' that parameter to be there. I don't know if this is a bug or a just a misunderstanding ;) I guess you made the (sorry!) classical mistake of adding parameters to the Cocoon servlet instead of the _webapp context_, which is what is accessed using Context.getInitParameter(). Oh no :) regards jeremy smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Makes sense. And migrating some stuff to the env-context may > help removing some dependencies on Avalon. But whe have to be > very careful about what attributes we want to move from > avalon-context to env-context, and be sure they will still > make sense in a new container and within blocks. > Yepp. > > The only point I'm not sure about is the object model: should > it be in the env-context, since it also contains that > env-context? Kind of circular dependency that may be confusing... > Yepp, that's true. I would say we leave this in the avalon context then. > What we need actually is some kind of mini-environment that > would give access only to the "safe" properties of > o.a.c.e.Environment, i.e. mainly the object model and > attributes, plus access to the current avalon-context > attributes through type-safe getter methods. > > >Then in flow, cocoon.context works perfect. > > > > > > Yupp. And with an IOC type2/3 container we could even > totally remove the dependency on avalon-context by simply have a > setContext(o.a.c.e.Context) method ;-) > Yepp :), it would work today if we would move to Fortress. Carsten
RE: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Jeremy Quinn wrote:
>
> > Currently these attributes are not really used.
>
> Ah, I though these were the context attributes you could
> access from FlowScript, as in:
> cocoon.context.setAttribute ("name", myObject); I have
> used this before . when I needed to share the same object
> between several users.
>
Yes, that's right. I meant Cocoon itself does not use them, it's
up to the users to make sense of them.
> >
> > And we have o.a.a.context.Context which is a map containing
> > many important information about the application.
>
> Do you mean org.apache.avalon.framework.context.Context ?
>
Yupp.
>
> Should I hold back on committing my changes to make ContextHelper
> Contextualizable, to wait to see what comes out of this proposal ?
>
Hmm, don't know - we are in development state so we can remove
it if we find a better solution before a release
Carsten
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Jeremy Quinn wrote:
Should I hold back on committing my changes to make ContextHelper
Contextualizable, to wait to see what comes out of this proposal ?
Wait a bit ;-)
You can still use the ContextAccess class in your own source tree, though.
BTW. I think there may be a related issue here with a problem noted a
while ago, where it was not possible to read parameters setup in
web.xml as expected using :
org.apache.cocoon.environment.Context.getInitParameter(String name)
Unless Cocoon was 'expecting' that parameter to be there.
I don't know if this is a bug or a just a misunderstanding ;)
I guess you made the (sorry!) classical mistake of adding parameters to
the Cocoon servlet instead of the _webapp context_, which is what is
accessed using Context.getInitParameter().
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
We already have cocoon.context, couldn't we make things available from there?
Mmmh... don't know if it's a good idea, as the Cocoon core currently doesn't rely on custom attributes in the environment objects (unless I'm mistaken). This would complexify things a bit, IMO.
Hmm, ok we currently have a o.a.c.environment.Context which has some functions from the servlet context object and attributes. Currently these attributes are not really used.
That's what I pointed out above: the Cocoon core currently makes no use
of attributes in env-context, session and request. These are for
application use, and up to now the Cocoon core has not "polluted" these
objects.
And we have o.a.a.context.Context which is a map containing many important information about the application.
Yep. Let's list what's in avalon-context.
The main DefaultContext is initialized with:
- Constants.CONTEXT_ENVIRONMENT_CONTEXT : the environment context (type
o.a.c.e.Context)
- Constants.CONTEXT_WORK_DIR : Cocoon's work directory (type File)
- ContextHelper.CONTEXT_ROOT_URL : the servlet context's URL (type
String - why not URL?)
- Constants.CONTEXT_UPLOAD_DIR : the upload directory (type File)
- Constants.CONTEXT_CACHE_DIR : the cache directory (type File)
- Constants.CONTEXT_CONFIG_URL : location of cocoon.xconf (type URL,
used only to initialize the Cocoon object)
- Constants.CONTEXT_DEFAULT_ENCODING : default form encoding (type String)
- Constants.CONTEXT_CLASS_LOADER : CocoonServlet's classloader (type
ClassLoader, used only to initialize the Cocoon object)
- Constants.CONTEXT_CLASSPATH : the classpath used by the XSP engine
(type String)
The actual Context seen by applications is a ComponentContext that wraps
the above DefaultContext with:
- ContextHelper.CONTEXT_OBJECT_MODEL : the current object model (type Map)
- ContextHelper.CONTEXT_SITEMAP_SERVICE_MANAGER : the current sitemap's
service manager
- ComponentContext.OBJECT_MODEL_KEY_PREFIX : prefix to access members of
the object model (could be removed, as only used in the implementation
of ContextHelper.getRequest()/getResponse())
When in HTTP environment, there's also:
- CocoonServlet.CONTEXT_SERVLET_CONFIG : the ServletConfig
When in portlet environment, there's also
- CocoonPortlet.CONTEXT_PORTLET_CONFIG: the PortletConfig
For me it seems that two contexts is one too much :)
Makes sense. And migrating some stuff to the env-context may help
removing some dependencies on Avalon. But whe have to be very careful
about what attributes we want to move from avalon-context to
env-context, and be sure they will still make sense in a new container
and within blocks.
So, why not combining those somehow. Currently you get the o.a.c.e.Context from the
avalon context.
Now, we could for example store all information we currently have in the avalon context into the environment context and using the environment context as the only reference for application information. If you need this context you can get it from the avalon context. The avalon context only contains this single piece of information (of course for compatibility we let everything remain there as well).
The only point I'm not sure about is the object model: should it be in
the env-context, since it also contains that env-context? Kind of
circular dependency that may be confusing...
What we need actually is some kind of mini-environment that would give
access only to the "safe" properties of o.a.c.e.Environment, i.e. mainly
the object model and attributes, plus access to the current
avalon-context attributes through type-safe getter methods.
Then in flow, cocoon.context works perfect.
Yupp. And with an IOC type2/3 container we could even totally remove
the dependency on avalon-context by simply have a
setContext(o.a.c.e.Context) method ;-)
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On 15 Jun 2004, at 15:57, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
We already have cocoon.context, couldn't we make things
available from there?
Mmmh... don't know if it's a good idea, as the Cocoon core
currently doesn't rely on custom attributes in the
environment objects (unless I'm mistaken). This would
complexify things a bit, IMO.
Hmm, ok we currently have a o.a.c.environment.Context which
has some functions from the servlet context object and attributes.
This is where I would have expected to find "work-directory", being a
Servlet-supplied parameter.
Currently these attributes are not really used.
Ah, I though these were the context attributes you could access from
FlowScript, as in:
cocoon.context.setAttribute ("name", myObject);
I have used this before . when I needed to share the same object
between several users.
And we have o.a.a.context.Context which is a map containing
many important information about the application.
Do you mean org.apache.avalon.framework.context.Context ?
For me it seems that two contexts is one too much :)
+ 1
It is rather complicated ;)
So, why not combining those somehow. Currently you get the
o.a.c.e.Context from the avalon context.
Now, we could for example store all information we currently
have in the avalon context into the environment context
and using the environment context as the only reference
for application information. If you need this context
you can get it from the avalon context. The avalon context
only contains this single piece of information (of course
for compatibility we let everything remain there as
well).
Then in flow, cocoon.context works perfect.
WDYT?
YES !!!
Should I hold back on committing my changes to make ContextHelper
Contextualizable, to wait to see what comes out of this proposal ?
BTW. I think there may be a related issue here with a problem noted a
while ago, where it was not possible to read parameters setup in
web.xml as expected using :
org.apache.cocoon.environment.Context.getInitParameter(String name)
Unless Cocoon was 'expecting' that parameter to be there.
I don't know if this is a bug or a just a misunderstanding ;)
regards Jeremy
If email from this address is not signed
IT IS NOT FROM ME
Always check the label, folks !
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > >We already have cocoon.context, couldn't we make things > available from there? > > > > > > Mmmh... don't know if it's a good idea, as the Cocoon core > currently doesn't rely on custom attributes in the > environment objects (unless I'm mistaken). This would > complexify things a bit, IMO. > Hmm, ok we currently have a o.a.c.environment.Context which has some functions from the servlet context object and attributes. Currently these attributes are not really used. And we have o.a.a.context.Context which is a map containing many important information about the application. For me it seems that two contexts is one too much :) So, why not combining those somehow. Currently you get the o.a.c.e.Context from the avalon context. Now, we could for example store all information we currently have in the avalon context into the environment context and using the environment context as the only reference for application information. If you need this context you can get it from the avalon context. The avalon context only contains this single piece of information (of course for compatibility we let everything remain there as well). Then in flow, cocoon.context works perfect. WDYT? Carsten
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Jeremy Quinn wrote:
I made o.a.c.components.ContextHelper Contextualizable, and added the
getAvalonContext() method. It all compiles but is not tested from
FlowScript yet.
I have to get on with some other stuff right now, but hope to have
this tested and committed by this evening (unless there are objections).
+1!
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On 15 Jun 2004, at 11:27, Jeremy Quinn wrote: On 15 Jun 2004, at 10:57, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Jeremy Quinn wrote: On 15 Jun 2004, at 10:11, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Looking at the vote results, the general opinion is to remove the API restrictions (got only +1's), Good but not tie the FOM to a particular Avalon object (got lots of +0's and a -1). This is more difficult to understand, but I could see why some were worried. So let's drop this cocoon.avalonContext proposal. Firstly because it becomes less useful if the FOM is unrestricted, and secondly because we can easily add the ContextAccess I proposed to Jeremy as a utility class. People using that class will know by doing so that their app becomes tied to Avalon. That is fine by me. Shall I commit the sample class you provided? Do you have any preferences for where it should live? Or do you have a more sophisticated way of adding this functionality, that you would prefer to use instead? I see two possible locations for this code: - in a new o.a.c.components.flow.util.AvalonContextAccessor class (note the explicit mention to Avalon to clearly show the dependency on the framework) I can understand this one - in o.a.c.components.ContextHelper, which alread holds a number of context-related methods. I am not quite sure how this functionality would get added to o.a.c.components.ContextHelper. It currently has all static methods, which are passed an existing org.apache.avalon.framework.context.Context Object. The second solution has the benefit of concentrating all Context-related features in a single class and so has my preference. Are you suggesting that this class be made Contextualizable and be given a getContext() method ? So to use it for getting a Context, you would call cocoon.createObject (ContextHelper).getContext () on it? OK I made o.a.c.components.ContextHelper Contextualizable, and added the getAvalonContext() method. It all compiles but is not tested from FlowScript yet. I have to get on with some other stuff right now, but hope to have this tested and committed by this evening (unless there are objections). regards Jeremy If email from this address is not signed IT IS NOT FROM ME Always check the label, folks ! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On 15 Jun 2004, at 10:57, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Jeremy Quinn wrote: On 15 Jun 2004, at 10:11, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Looking at the vote results, the general opinion is to remove the API restrictions (got only +1's), Good but not tie the FOM to a particular Avalon object (got lots of +0's and a -1). This is more difficult to understand, but I could see why some were worried. So let's drop this cocoon.avalonContext proposal. Firstly because it becomes less useful if the FOM is unrestricted, and secondly because we can easily add the ContextAccess I proposed to Jeremy as a utility class. People using that class will know by doing so that their app becomes tied to Avalon. That is fine by me. Shall I commit the sample class you provided? Do you have any preferences for where it should live? Or do you have a more sophisticated way of adding this functionality, that you would prefer to use instead? I see two possible locations for this code: - in a new o.a.c.components.flow.util.AvalonContextAccessor class (note the explicit mention to Avalon to clearly show the dependency on the framework) I can understand this one - in o.a.c.components.ContextHelper, which alread holds a number of context-related methods. I am not quite sure how this functionality would get added to o.a.c.components.ContextHelper. It currently has all static methods, which are passed an existing org.apache.avalon.framework.context.Context Object. The second solution has the benefit of concentrating all Context-related features in a single class and so has my preference. Are you suggesting that this class be made Contextualizable and be given a getContext() method ? So to use it for getting a Context, you would call cocoon.createObject (ContextHelper).getContext () on it? Thanks regards Jeremy smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Jeremy Quinn wrote:
On 15 Jun 2004, at 10:11, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Looking at the vote results, the general opinion is to remove the API
restrictions (got only +1's),
Good
but not tie the FOM to a particular Avalon object (got lots of +0's
and a -1).
This is more difficult to understand, but I could see why some were
worried.
So let's drop this cocoon.avalonContext proposal. Firstly because it
becomes less useful if the FOM is unrestricted, and secondly because
we can easily add the ContextAccess I proposed to Jeremy as a utility
class. People using that class will know by doing so that their app
becomes tied to Avalon.
That is fine by me.
Shall I commit the sample class you provided?
Do you have any preferences for where it should live?
Or do you have a more sophisticated way of adding this functionality,
that you would prefer to use instead?
I see two possible locations for this code:
- in a new o.a.c.components.flow.util.AvalonContextAccessor class (note
the explicit mention to Avalon to clearly show the dependency on the
framework)
- in o.a.c.components.ContextHelper, which alread holds a number of
context-related methods.
The second solution has the benefit of concentrating all Context-related
features in a single class and so has my preference.
WDYT?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On 15 Jun 2004, at 10:11, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Reinhard Poetz wrote: Sylvain Wallez wrote: Hi all, More and more, the limitations of objects provided by the FOM seem like arbitrary constraints that go in the way of people and produce confusion. Furthermore, these restrictions only apply to the JS flowscript and not to JavaFlow, thus making JS flowscript a second zone citizen compared to Java code. That's why I propose to remove these restrictions my having cocoon.request, cocoon.response and cocoon.context providing the full API defined by the interfaces in org.apache.cocoon.environment. Furthermore, I propose to add cocoon.avalonContext to provide access to the various data held by this object. More background on this subject is available in the "Less is more... or less" discussion [1] and my answer to Jeremy's problem [2] that shows how simple it is to workaround the restricted FOM. Please cast your votes! - [+1] to remove restrictions on existing objects. - [?] to add cocoon.avalonContext. I'm not sure about avalonContext.`What happens if we really drop Avalon as base framework? Do statements containing cocoon.avalonContext still work or will they be hidden (because Flowscript is interpreted) broken? If the user has to use the workaround and she recompiles the code with Cocoon 3.0 and the compiler doesn't compile her code anymore, she knows that she has a problem. Or will a possible legacy mode hide that she may have a problem? We should really try to make moving from Cocoon 2.x to 3.x as smooth as possible and users that only use Flowscripts and the sitemap shouldn't be forced to change their applications if they want to use Cocoon in the same way as they have been used to do. Looking at the vote results, the general opinion is to remove the API restrictions (got only +1's), Good but not tie the FOM to a particular Avalon object (got lots of +0's and a -1). This is more difficult to understand, but I could see why some were worried. So let's drop this cocoon.avalonContext proposal. Firstly because it becomes less useful if the FOM is unrestricted, and secondly because we can easily add the ContextAccess I proposed to Jeremy as a utility class. People using that class will know by doing so that their app becomes tied to Avalon. That is fine by me. Shall I commit the sample class you provided? Do you have any preferences for where it should live? Or do you have a more sophisticated way of adding this functionality, that you would prefer to use instead? Thanks for your help, and thanks everyone for your votes. regards Jeremy smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Hi all,
More and more, the limitations of objects provided by the FOM seem
like arbitrary constraints that go in the way of people and produce
confusion. Furthermore, these restrictions only apply to the JS
flowscript and not to JavaFlow, thus making JS flowscript a second
zone citizen compared to Java code.
That's why I propose to remove these restrictions my having
cocoon.request, cocoon.response and cocoon.context providing the full
API defined by the interfaces in org.apache.cocoon.environment.
Furthermore, I propose to add cocoon.avalonContext to provide access
to the various data held by this object.
More background on this subject is available in the "Less is more...
or less" discussion [1] and my answer to Jeremy's problem [2] that
shows how simple it is to workaround the restricted FOM.
Please cast your votes!
- [+1] to remove restrictions on existing objects.
- [?] to add cocoon.avalonContext.
I'm not sure about avalonContext.`What happens if we really drop
Avalon as base framework? Do statements containing
cocoon.avalonContext still work or will they be hidden (because
Flowscript is interpreted) broken? If the user has to use the
workaround and she recompiles the code with Cocoon 3.0 and the
compiler doesn't compile her code anymore, she knows that she has a
problem. Or will a possible legacy mode hide that she may have a problem?
We should really try to make moving from Cocoon 2.x to 3.x as smooth
as possible and users that only use Flowscripts and the sitemap
shouldn't be forced to change their applications if they want to use
Cocoon in the same way as they have been used to do.
Looking at the vote results, the general opinion is to remove the API
restrictions (got only +1's), but not tie the FOM to a particular Avalon
object (got lots of +0's and a -1).
So let's drop this cocoon.avalonContext proposal. Firstly because it
becomes less useful if the FOM is unrestricted, and secondly because we
can easily add the ContextAccess I proposed to Jeremy as a utility
class. People using that class will know by doing so that their app
becomes tied to Avalon.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Sylvain Wallez wrote: Hi all, More and more, the limitations of objects provided by the FOM seem like arbitrary constraints that go in the way of people and produce confusion. Furthermore, these restrictions only apply to the JS flowscript and not to JavaFlow, thus making JS flowscript a second zone citizen compared to Java code. That's why I propose to remove these restrictions my having cocoon.request, cocoon.response and cocoon.context providing the full API defined by the interfaces in org.apache.cocoon.environment. Furthermore, I propose to add cocoon.avalonContext to provide access to the various data held by this object. More background on this subject is available in the "Less is more... or less" discussion [1] and my answer to Jeremy's problem [2] that shows how simple it is to workaround the restricted FOM. Please cast your votes! - [+1] to remove restrictions on existing objects. - [?] to add cocoon.avalonContext. I'm not sure about avalonContext.`What happens if we really drop Avalon as base framework? Do statements containing cocoon.avalonContext still work or will they be hidden (because Flowscript is interpreted) broken? If the user has to use the workaround and she recompiles the code with Cocoon 3.0 and the compiler doesn't compile her code anymore, she knows that she has a problem. Or will a possible legacy mode hide that she may have a problem? We should really try to make moving from Cocoon 2.x to 3.x as smooth as possible and users that only use Flowscripts and the sitemap shouldn't be forced to change their applications if they want to use Cocoon in the same way as they have been used to do. WDYT? -- Reinhard
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Joerg Heinicke wrote: [+1] to remove restrictions on existing objects. [+0] to add cocoon.avalonContext. Joerg Same here. Tony
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
This context is a map containing key value pairs, it contains some "global" information (paths etc.) and e.g. the object model.
So even if we would move away from avalon we could have this map without breaking compatibility here. That's why I'm against "avalonContext".
Ok, I understand your point. It's true that Avalon's context is
basically an immutable Map with no means to get the list of entries. But
if we move away from Avalon, it's very likely that this concept of
container context will even not exist.
We already have cocoon.context, couldn't we make things available from there?
Mmmh... don't know if it's a good idea, as the Cocoon core currently
doesn't rely on custom attributes in the environment objects (unless I'm
mistaken). This would complexify things a bit, IMO.
In the end, I think that either we add cocoon.avalonContext or we commit
the ContextAccess I proposed to Jeremy (we can also merge it in
ContextHelper). But let's not try to abstract what Avalon provides in a
framework-independent manner as that abstraction may disappear it we
move away from Avalon.
WDYT?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
RE: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
This context is a map containing key value pairs, it contains some
"global" information (paths etc.) and e.g. the object model.
So even if we would move away from avalon we could have this
map without breaking compatibility here.
That's why I'm against "avalonContext".
We already have cocoon.context, couldn't we make things
available from there?
Carsten
> -Original Message-
> From: Sylvain Wallez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> >Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >
> >
> >>- [ ] to remove restrictions on existing objects.
> >>
> >>
> >+1
> >
> >
> >>- [ ] to add cocoon.avalonContext.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >-1 for the name "avalonContext". I think we should avoid
> references to Avalon whereever possible. Otherwise perhaps we
> have to rename it in the future.
> >So, +1 if a different name is used.
> >
> >
>
> Well, how to name it since this *is* the Avalon context? I
> mean if one day we totally move away from Avalon, that object
> will naturally disappear. With some back compatibility
> problems, of course, but there will also be many others in
> many other places in our code.
>
> Or something like "frameworkContext" or "containerContext"?
> Sure, it avoids the Avalon name but IMO doesn't clearly
> indicate what it is about.
>
> Sylvain
>
> --
> Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
> http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
> { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
- [ ] to remove restrictions on existing objects.
+1
- [ ] to add cocoon.avalonContext.
-1 for the name "avalonContext". I think we should avoid references to Avalon whereever possible. Otherwise perhaps we have to rename it in the future.
So, +1 if a different name is used.
Well, how to name it since this *is* the Avalon context? I mean if one
day we totally move away from Avalon, that object will naturally
disappear. With some back compatibility problems, of course, but there
will also be many others in many other places in our code.
Or something like "frameworkContext" or "containerContext"? Sure, it
avoids the Avalon name but IMO doesn't clearly indicate what it is about.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Sylvain Wallez wrote: - [+1] to remove restrictions on existing objects. - [+0] to add cocoon.avalonContext.
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
+1 to remove restrictions on existing objects. +0 to add cocoon.avalonContext.
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On 14 Jun 2004, at 12:11, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Sylvain Wallez wrote: - [ ] to remove restrictions on existing objects. +1 - [ ] to add cocoon.avalonContext. -1 for the name "avalonContext". I think we should avoid references to Avalon whereever possible. Otherwise perhaps we have to rename it in the future. So, +1 if a different name is used. call it 'framework' ? regards Jeremy If email from this address is not signed IT IS NOT FROM ME Always check the label, folks ! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > - [ ] to remove restrictions on existing objects. +1 > - [ ] to add cocoon.avalonContext. -1 for the name "avalonContext". I think we should avoid references to Avalon whereever possible. Otherwise perhaps we have to rename it in the future. So, +1 if a different name is used. Carsten
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On 14 Jun 2004, at 11:01, Sylvain Wallez wrote: Please cast your votes! The ease with which it can be worked around (thanks Sylvain) and the fact this is available to JavaFlow are good arguments IMHO. - [ +1 ] to remove restrictions on existing objects. - [ +1 ] to add cocoon.avalonContext. regards Jeremy If email from this address is not signed IT IS NOT FROM ME Always check the label, folks ! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
On 14.06.2004 12:01, Sylvain Wallez wrote: That's why I propose to remove these restrictions my having cocoon.request, cocoon.response and cocoon.context providing the full API defined by the interfaces in org.apache.cocoon.environment. Furthermore, I propose to add cocoon.avalonContext to provide access to the various data held by this object. [+1] to remove restrictions on existing objects. [+0] to add cocoon.avalonContext. Joerg
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Le 14 juin 04, à 12:01, Sylvain Wallez a écrit : Please cast your votes! - [ +1] to remove restrictions on existing objects. - [ +1] to add cocoon.avalonContext. -Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
+1 to remove restrictions on existing objects.
+1 to add cocoon.avalonContext.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
[VOTE] Unrestricting the FOM
Hi all,
More and more, the limitations of objects provided by the FOM seem like
arbitrary constraints that go in the way of people and produce
confusion. Furthermore, these restrictions only apply to the JS
flowscript and not to JavaFlow, thus making JS flowscript a second zone
citizen compared to Java code.
That's why I propose to remove these restrictions my having
cocoon.request, cocoon.response and cocoon.context providing the full
API defined by the interfaces in org.apache.cocoon.environment.
Furthermore, I propose to add cocoon.avalonContext to provide access to
the various data held by this object.
More background on this subject is available in the "Less is more... or
less" discussion [1] and my answer to Jeremy's problem [2] that shows
how simple it is to workaround the restricted FOM.
Please cast your votes!
- [ ] to remove restrictions on existing objects.
- [ ] to add cocoon.avalonContext.
Sylvain
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=107995167207822&w=2
[2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=108716209403338&w=2
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
