> From: Stefano Mazzocchi <skip/>
> Chris suggests we release 2.1 without bothering the FOM because it > will need time to adjust anyway. I agree, but what really worries me > is the fact that we *already* know it's going to change radically and > releasing such a bad contract is not going to be good publicity for > cocoon in general from contract solidity perspective. > > you can mark it as beta as much as you like, but people are going to > discover it, fall in love with it, use it for testing, then pressured > by their bosses, put it in production, then ask support for it, or at > least a back compatibility layer. > > Do you really want to force our users to go thru this? I don't. That's exactly the point! The flow needs users that implement it in many real life projects to make it stable from an implementation point of view (altough I think it _is_ already very stable.). But this needs a stable interface (FOM) because otherwise many users will hesitate to use it in production and I learned in the past that only real life problems can really challange a new concept or technology. And additionally I'm +1 for the evolutionary approach small to big because it makes it easier to maintain your application in the future. - o - So let's try to finish the FOM! First I summarized the agreed points here: [http://wiki.cocoondev.org/Wiki.jsp?page=FOM] And after looking through the latest discussion of the FOM the open points are: - Component loading Object getComponent(id) -> obtains the component indicated by the given ID Here [http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105405317918849&w=2] Stefano wrote: "Obviously, the flow will not have access to *all* components, but only to components that will be 'flow-available'." Stefano, could you elaborate on this? How would you make a component flow-available? How does this avoid the possible abuse of the control flow? - stateful components -> how to release them? There have been two mails: RR: [http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105464984417883&w=2] SW: [http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105472379523896&w=2] Are there any more thoughts about this? - Should the flow _always_ be associated with a Session? - void callAction(name,map) -> invoques the action indicated by the given name and pass the given map as model Is there anybody against removing it? Is there a real need for it? I would say we should remove it and point people asking for it to [http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105407572313285&w=2]. And if we want we can decide to add it to the FOM at every time ... - Context Which methods are available? Especially do we need setAttribute( name, value )? see: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105405579422169&w=2 And here some points that have not been discussed yet (or overlooked by me): - What has happened with the continuation object? Don't we need it any more? - Do we need access to the modules? Or is the prefered way using getComponent( id ) in the future? Are there any other open points? Reinhard PS: My time is very limited at the moment but I'm willing to help as much as (and if) I can!