Hmmm... I agree that "flash" can be misleading, but "access" doesn't seem very descriptive to me. I think "page" or "view" might be more appropriate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Kitching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:00 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access" > > 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
