Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > <snip on how Pier arrived at the following:/>
> >
> >> What I would love to have, before even touching the flow
> >> _implementation_, is a consistent language-unaware
> definition of the
> >> object model that flow scripts will live into, define
> bindings from
> >> this object model to JavaScript, so that we all know what we are
> >> _supposed_ to implement, why, where and when.
> >>
> >
> > Yes please! But while you are at it, don't you really want
> to define
> > a complete Cocoon object model and not just one for flow (I think
> > that's maybe what you're already doing?)?
>
> I don't have 3 months to document that _WHOLE_ thing! :-)
Fair enough, but how about a high level sketch of where the other parts fit
in? Something like:
complete model
|
+------+----------+
| | |
flow environment whatever
Where only "flow" is completely documented at the moment? (And yes, I
realize the hierarchy is probably more complicated than that, that's why I
need some documentation...)
I fear that if you only document "flow" people will add things to flow
because they don't know where else to put them...
