Torsten Curdt wrote:
So I think we should clearly separate the FOM (the JS wrapper of the OM) from the FAPI, the flowscript API which gathers flowscript-related utility functions by attaching them for a new "flowscript" object.
We would therefore have:
- cocoon.request, cocoon.context, cocoon.mymodule, etc.
- flowscript.sendPageAndWait(), flowscript.getComponent(), flowscript.redirect(), etc.
sounds good to me ...one tiny thing though: I'd prefer the name "flow" ...so
flow.sendPageAndWait(), flow.getComponent(), flow.redirect()
Why not cocoon.flow....? Do we really need another entry-point?
With javaflow the whole "script" naming scheme does not really fit ...even if you get a script-like behaviour with the compiling classloader ...IMO
You're falling in the same trap again ;-)
Why should the flowscript API and javaflow API be the same?
As Torsten already said, they should be (if not the same but) close, and +1 to that.
Vadim
