yes, good idea +1 I like the name "access scope" and also experienced people who use the term "flash scope" for <t:saveState> usage.
--Manfred On Jan 29, 2008 8:59 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Currently in orchestra there are two types of conversation scope: "manual" > and "flash". With "manual", a conversation must be explicitly ended via > either a call to the Orchestra API, or use of a jsf tag. With "flash", the > conversation is automatically ended when a request cycle ends and no object > in the conversation was accessed. > > Some people have noted that other libraries use the term "flash scope" for a > somewhat different purpose. I therefore propose changing the name to "access > scope". > > This change will mean renaming about 6 classes, updating the examples and > updating the website documentation. > > I intend to keep backwards compatibility with 1.0 to the level where normal > Spring configuration files still work unaltered (and will test this by making > sure the existing orchestra examples work unaltered, before I update them to > show the "new" config). > > However for classes which would only be used by people deriving their own > custom scope-managers, etc., I don't currently plan to keep full binary > compatibility. > > Are there any objections? > > Regards, > Simon > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
