Yepp
This is clearly inconsistent.
I personally would remove this syntactic sugar completly; it's imho not intuitiv what it means and the inconsistent implementation adds to it.
Furthermore, I really don't like this naming scope filled from different sources (the object itself and some other data), especially when one of the sources comes from the browser.
And what about conflicts? Fortunately the object is searched before request parameters, otherwise this would be a nice security hole.
So, what do we do? Do we keep this inconsistent behaviour, deprecate it, remove it now?
WDYT?
In addition it would make our unified object model implementation (for flow, jxtg etc.) much easier as we don't have to simulate this in Java.
Unfortunately, I fear that this is common use, so let's deprecate it with 2.1.x and remove for 2.2 completly
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
