On 30.Jun.2003 -- 10:29 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Ricardo Rocha wrote:
>
> >Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >
> >>Ricardo Rocha wrote:
> >>
> >Imo, the flow renders actions (and modules outside the sitemap)
> >unnecessary, so we shouldn't encourage their continued use by
> >providing FOM-level support for them. The idea, in the long term, is
> >to stop using actions (and xsp's, for that matter) in favor of the flow.
> >
> >That said, *indirect* access to modules and actions would satisfy
> >short-term, transitional requests to allow reuse of such "legacy"
> >components from the flow (if only by popular demand :-)).
>
> Ok. So we allow some abuse to satify transition of legacy applications
> or code.
I'm happy with the suggested legacy.js in conjunction with the changes
needed with regard to the object model.
Nag : I still believe that creating a new, cut-down request, session,
properties, cookie object for flow is unwise and we'd be better off
ripping them out and go through modules instead. That would simplify
the FOM a lot and yet would be more powerful.
Chris.
--
C h r i s t i a n H a u l
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fingerprint: 99B0 1D9D 7919 644A 4837 7D73 FEF9 6856 335A 9E08
