code ethics on js-java integration
Yo people, after the recent introduction of the WoodyPipelineConfig object, I am tempted to change the line 125 in woody2.js see: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/woody/java/org/apache/cocoon/woody/flow/javascript/woody2.js?rev=1.3view=auto for:bizData[woody-form] = this.form; towards: bizData[Packages.org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation.WoodyPipelineConfig.WOODY_FORM] = this.form; this is a natural reflex from pure Java land, but I'm left to doubth now it this kind of more tight integration is desirable into the js-area? conceptually I only see benefits in doing so ATM, but maybe there are some other considerations that I'm missing? (e.g. performance penalty? lack of cross language refactoring tools? ...) regards, -marc= -- Marc Portierhttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: code ethics on js-java integration
Marc Portier wrote:
Yo people,
after the recent introduction of the WoodyPipelineConfig object, I am
tempted to change the line 125 in woody2.js
see:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/woody/java/org/apache/cocoon/woody/flow/javascript/woody2.js?rev=1.3view=auto
for:bizData[woody-form] = this.form;
towards:
bizData[Packages.org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation.WoodyPipelineConfig.WOODY_FORM]
= this.form;
this is a natural reflex from pure Java land, but I'm left to doubth
now it this kind of more tight integration is desirable into the js-area?
It *is* desirable, as the JS and Java code will use this string to
communicate. So it's better to have it defined in a single location.
So +1!
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
Re: code ethics on js-java integration
Sylvain Wallez wrote: Marc Portier wrote: Yo people, after the recent introduction of the WoodyPipelineConfig object, I am tempted to change the line 125 in woody2.js see: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/woody/java/org/apache/cocoon/woody/flow/javascript/woody2.js?rev=1.3view=auto for:bizData[woody-form] = this.form; towards: bizData[Packages.org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation.WoodyPipelineConfig.WOODY_FORM] = this.form; this is a natural reflex from pure Java land, but I'm left to doubth now it this kind of more tight integration is desirable into the js-area? It *is* desirable, as the JS and Java code will use this string to communicate. So it's better to have it defined in a single location. So +1! thx for confirming... change underway... -marc= -- Marc Portierhttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: code ethics on js-java integration
Marc Portier wrote: Sylvain Wallez wrote: Marc Portier wrote: Yo people, after the recent introduction of the WoodyPipelineConfig object, I am tempted to change the line 125 in woody2.js see: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/woody/java/org/apache/cocoon/woody/flow/javascript/woody2.js?rev=1.3view=auto for:bizData[woody-form] = this.form; towards: bizData[Packages.org.apache.cocoon.woody.transformation.WoodyPipelineConfig.WOODY_FORM] = this.form; this is a natural reflex from pure Java land, but I'm left to doubth now it this kind of more tight integration is desirable into the js-area? It *is* desirable, as the JS and Java code will use this string to communicate. So it's better to have it defined in a single location. So +1! thx for confirming... change underway... PS Many tools (read: IDEA) will search in text files for your Java identifiers when renaming/deleting. Vadim
Re: code ethics on js-java integration
snip/ PS Many tools (read: IDEA) will search in text files for your Java identifiers when renaming/deleting. A little offtopic but wouldn´t it be possible to use the OpenAPI in IDEA to create a flowscript editor with command completion, class lookups etc etc. Is anyone else interested in pursuing this idea? I may have some spare cycles between christmas and new years... :) /Mats ps. Maybe there already exists such an editor, if so, then ignore this post ;) ds.
