On 3/2/07, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Arash Rajaeeyan schrieb:
> and may be thats because shale has chosen a different approach?
>
No...
Actually I think the fusion conversation system is one level lower than
shale dialog.
While shale dialog basically follows the approach -> configuration of
dialog scopes, have something which can keep objects in ram during
the dialog.
the fusion conversation system is along the lines of:
providing a programmatic accessible scope mechanism based on spring 2.0s
basic scope control which also is able
to handle orm entity manager control, no dialog configuration whatsoever
(except for a spring bean entry).
Nothing speaks against accessing this programmatic control from a
configuration based dialog system, and only a few things currently
prevent it from being accessible from other webframeworks outside of the
jsf scope.
But as Mario said, who knows what the future will bring.
One thing I've wondered as I've watched the fusion stuff go by ... in
an architecture that is so heavily based on Spring 2 already, why
wasn't Spring Web Flow used? It looks like the core value add you
wanted (managing the persistence tier resources at a per-conversation
level instead of per-request) could have been done with SWF just as
easily as writing your own conversation scope stuff.
Craig
