New cocoon.setupObject() and cocoon.disposeObject()

[Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>]

Hi team,

As per the discussion following the new cocoon.setupObject(obj) method, 
I added to new methods to the FOM:

- cocoon.createObject(class) creates an object and goes through the 
various Avalon lifecycle interfaces.
   The "class" attribute can be either a Class (written 
Packages.my.package.MyClass in JavaScript) or a String (the class name).
- cocoon.disposeObject(object) diposes an object if needed.

I think that createObject() is better than setupObject() and therefore 
would like to remove this second method.

Thoughts?

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: New cocoon.setupObject() and cocoon.disposeObject()

[Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>]

Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Hi team,
>
> As per the discussion following the new cocoon.setupObject(obj) 
> method, I added to new methods to the FOM:
>
> - cocoon.createObject(class) creates an object and goes through the 
> various Avalon lifecycle interfaces.
>   The "class" attribute can be either a Class (written 
> Packages.my.package.MyClass in JavaScript) or a String (the class name).
> - cocoon.disposeObject(object) diposes an object if needed.
>
> I think that createObject() is better than setupObject() and therefore 
> would like to remove this second method.
>
> Thoughts?


+1 to removal of setupObject.

Vadim

Re: New cocoon.setupObject() and cocoon.disposeObject()

[Tony Collen <co...@umn.edu>]

Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Hi team,
> 
> As per the discussion following the new cocoon.setupObject(obj) method, 
> I added to new methods to the FOM:
> 
> - cocoon.createObject(class) creates an object and goes through the 
> various Avalon lifecycle interfaces.
>   The "class" attribute can be either a Class (written 
> Packages.my.package.MyClass in JavaScript) or a String (the class name).
> - cocoon.disposeObject(object) diposes an object if needed.
> 
> I think that createObject() is better than setupObject() and therefore 
> would like to remove this second method.

Hrmm... I'm no Avalon expert, in fact, I don't even claim to feel 
comfortable using it, but I'd like to see more "Avalon Lite" stuff in 
the FOM, or at least the FOM stuff which corresponds to the Avalon API 
should be similarly named.

IMO people will be wondering why they should use 
createObject(Packages.foo) when they can just do "new Packages.foo()".

The name should somehow specify that the component goes through the 
Avalon component lifecycle.  I don't know if the name of the functions 
can be "Avalonized" or not, but it's definitely something to think 
about.  cocoon.lifecycle.createObject(class) ? 
cocoon.avalon.createObject() ?   Just throwing ideas out.

Don't forget the docs!  I think one thing that people are going to miss 
when looking up components is remembering to release them.

> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Sylvain
> 


Regards,

Tony