Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I don't think this should break much code, as that object (which BTW
I prefer to name "view data" rather than the ambiguous "flow context"
-- we have enough contexts in Cocoon) is supposed to be a JS object.
And a JS object can easily be turned into a Map by associating
property names to Map keys. We could even have a JSObjectMap that
wraps a Scriptable as a Map.
Can I consider this a +1 to make the contract more strict? :)
Don't you think "view data" should support Java Beans as well?
No :) Currently we look if "view data" is either a map of objects
(beans) or a single bean - and this looks ugly and unnecessary to me.
Why not always have a map - if you want to put a single bean into the
data then make a map with one entry. But imho it feels wrong that
depending on what you put into the view data, you access it differently
from e.g. jxtg
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
