You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de> on 2003/10/21 11:45:12 UTC
JavaScriptInterpreter vs. FOM_JavaScriptInterpreter
Can anyone please give me short hint/pointer why we have
so two classes that look very identical?
Thanks
Carsten
Re: JavaScriptInterpreter vs. FOM_JavaScriptInterpreter
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@anyware-tech.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Can anyone please give me short hint/pointer why we have so two classes that look very identical?
>
FOM_JavaScriptInterpreter is the one that implements the FOM (Flow
Object Model), and the only one that should actually be used.
A good thing would be to remove the current JavaScriptInterpreter and
replace it by the FOM_JavaScriptIntepreter. But I fear that is will
break many applications that rely on the FOM_Cocoon object.
We should have better designed this with interfaces...
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
Re: JavaScriptInterpreter vs. FOM_JavaScriptInterpreter
Posted by Per-Olof Noren <pe...@alma.nu>.
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 11:45, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Can anyone please give me short hint/pointer why we have
> so two classes that look very identical?
I thought (when looking for a solution to my ClassCastException) that
this was intentional in order to be able to migrate a complete and
possible smaller package.
2 cents worth anyway
Regards,
Per-Olof Norén
Curalia AB
RE: JavaScriptInterpreter vs. FOM_JavaScriptInterpreter
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> > From: Carsten Ziegeler
> >
> >
> >>Can anyone please give me short hint/pointer why we have
> >>so two classes that look very identical?
> >
> >
> > The Javascript-Interpreter is the *old* one that doesn't implement the
> > later introduced FOM. For compatibility reasons I haven't deleted it yet
> > although it has never been published but maybe some early adopters used
> > it and I wanted to give them some time to make the changes.
> >
> > In 2.2 we can delete it, what do you think for 2.1?
> >
> > Reinhard
>
> Delete it in 2.2, deprecate it in 2.1.
>
+1
Carsten
Re: JavaScriptInterpreter vs. FOM_JavaScriptInterpreter
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jh...@virbus.de>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> From: Carsten Ziegeler
>
>
>>Can anyone please give me short hint/pointer why we have
>>so two classes that look very identical?
>
>
> The Javascript-Interpreter is the *old* one that doesn't implement the
> later introduced FOM. For compatibility reasons I haven't deleted it yet
> although it has never been published but maybe some early adopters used
> it and I wanted to give them some time to make the changes.
>
> In 2.2 we can delete it, what do you think for 2.1?
>
> Reinhard
Delete it in 2.2, deprecate it in 2.1.
Joerg
--
System Development
VIRBUS AG
Fon +49(0)341-979-7419
Fax +49(0)341-979-7409
joerg.heinicke@virbus.de
www.virbus.de
RE: JavaScriptInterpreter vs. FOM_JavaScriptInterpreter
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
From: Carsten Ziegeler
> Can anyone please give me short hint/pointer why we have
> so two classes that look very identical?
The Javascript-Interpreter is the *old* one that doesn't implement the
later introduced FOM. For compatibility reasons I haven't deleted it yet
although it has never been published but maybe some early adopters used
it and I wanted to give them some time to make the changes.
In 2.2 we can delete it, what do you think for 2.1?
Reinhard