Are they? At least to me the concepts of Request, Session, Request Parameter, Session Attribute, etc, exist independently of those Java interfaces (in fact the Servlet API presents most of the same concepts with different interfaces). Stefano and Ricardo took the time and effort to define a JS API for those concepts, which included accessing Request parameters as JS properties, and so on. I don't see anything wrong with their API and I don't see any reason to convert it to the Java API (and there are plenty of reasons not to - for backward compatibility and ease of use, at least).
Christopher Oliver wrote:
<snip/>
Mmmh... you're right, there _wasn't_ such a property before my changes. This explains the lengthy wrapping code that was in FOM_Request that exposed only functions and no properties except the request parameters (or attributes for session and context).
Now this throws away one of the nice things that Rhino provides us which is shorter dotted notation for JavaBean properties. And that's what I find confusing: once someone has understood how Java objects are mapped to JS objects, he needs next to forget this knowledge and learn that request, session and context have to be used in a special way.
JS objects can and do exist without directly "wrapping" Java objects.
If you had accepted the original design which made FOM_Request, FOM_Session, etc, first-class JS objects (i.e. _not_ "mapped" versions of the Java objects) then there isn't any special knowledge to "throw away".
Yes there is, because the reference objects in the case of FOM are the *Java* objects.
After all, if you really want to use the Java API, you can now use Java Flow right?
-- Chris
