"dialog" is misleading (in the technical context). "workflow" is better but maybe misleading since one of the first associations is a workflow engine
regards, gerhard 2013/6/6 Adrian Gonzalez <adr_gonza...@yahoo.fr> > Hi, > Orchestra doc refers to conversation / dialog (even workflow). > DialogScoped would appear to me to be a fine proposition (at least > equivalent to ConversationScoped ;) ) > > ----- Mail original ----- > De : Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > À : dev@deltaspike.apache.org > Cc : > Envoyé le : Jeudi 6 juin 2013 15h21 > Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] deltaspike-0.5 features > > #1 imo those names don't fit at all. > #2 starting the scope explicitly is against the initial idea (please have a > look at [1] and even [2] as well as any other std. scope) and it's an > important (+ intended) difference. > > regards, > gerhard > > [1] http://os890.blogspot.co.at/2011/04/slides-codi-conversations.html > [2] http://myfaces.apache.org/orchestra/index.html > > > > 2013/6/6 titou10 titou10 <titou10.tito...@gmail.com> > > > DialogScope ? > > FlowScope ? (Possible confusion with JSF 2.2 ?) > > ExtendedConversationScope ? > > CustomConversationScope ? > > ConversationCustomScope ? > > ConversationExtendedScope ? > > ExtendedScope ? > > DSConversationScope ? > > RequestExtendedScope ? > > > > Also should this scope : > > - be started and terminated explicitely a-la "CDI ConversationScope" > > with conversation.begin() and conversation.end() > > - start automatically, end be terminated explicitly a-la CODI > > ConversationScope? conversation.close() > > ... in addition to be terminated when the "parent" (Session/Window scope) > > ends.. > > > > IMHO it seems the first option seems better for us as it may be used > > in a more generic way and . > > > > > > > > 2013/6/6 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > > > you are very welcome to suggest a better name. > > > > > > regards, > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/6/6 titou10 titou10 <titou10.tito...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> Suggestion: > > >> When porting CODI "ConversationScope" to DS, should it be possible to > > >> NOT name this Scope "ConversationScope" > > >> Currently, when using CODI, it is very confusing to have 2 different > > >> scopes having the same "ConversationScope" name: the CDI one and the > > >> CODI. Introduce a lot of confusion when communicating between > > >> developers > > >> Thx > > >> > > >> 2013/6/1 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>: > > >> > Hi! > > >> > > > >> > It's time to go for planing ds-0.5. > > >> > I'd say the release should be pretty small this time. Mostly bug > fixes > > >> and a few minor enhancements. And max 1 or 2 bigger bullet features. > > >> > The goal is to release ds-0.5 end of this month. > > >> > > > >> > A few things on the list as I remember so far: > > >> > > > >> > * Finish graduation and apply latest changes to our Docs. > > >> > * Servlet module. Please add JIRAs which feature you like to see in > > this > > >> module > > >> > > > >> > * Improve the JSF module. We still miss a few features from CODI and > > >> seam-faces > > >> > . improve ClientWindow handling > > >> > . improve the typesafe navigation > > >> > . add @ConfigurationScoped and @ViewAccessScoped > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > * Improve the configuration > > >> > . brainstorming about configuration 'categories' as requested a few > > >> times already > > >> > . ProjectStage and/or property specific configuration > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > This DISCUSS will be closed in 72h. New feature requests after that > > time > > >> will be handled in deltaspike-0.6 (unless they are blockers). > > >> > > > >> > The timeframe I would suggest: > > >> > > > >> > * Implement new features during 2013-06-12 > > >> > * Bugfixing and documentation until 2013-06-19 > > >> > * start with the release on 2013-06-23 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Any objection, ideas, feedback? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > txs and LieGrue, > > >> > strub > > >> > > > >> > > > >
