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