[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-411?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Peter Stavrinides updated TAP5-411: ----------------------------------- Description: Perhaps the most commonly reoccurring persistence pattern is 'per page', as opposed to session wide, or per request. Tapestry provides persistence strategies for the later of these, but there is no strategy that mirrors a pages 'implied' life-cycle. @Persist Persists a value for a page for the duration of a session: best used on primitives, a disadvantage is that its open for abuse by incorrect use which will clutter the session and increase its size thereby reducing scalability. @Persist("flash") A persisted object is removed after a post: - Not suited to all use cases that require 'page specific' persistence... render methods can sometimes prevent using flash persistence. Currently the most scalable pattern for simulating page state is using onActivate with onPassivate, and re-instantiating objects required for the page, generally from their identifiers. It requires more boilerplate code for checking that URL parameters are passed correctly, particularly for pages that have 'optional parameters'... the downside is more queries and having to use identifiers in URL parameters. @Persist("conversation") Seam provides this type of strategy, conversations provide a generally better persistence context, persistence is associated to a single window / tab, for which it retains state information between data requests/posts etc (whereas its relatives, which are other windows or tabs will be independent to the 'conversation') . Conversational state has been discussed in the past for Tapestry. @Persist("?") The proposed strategy is along the same lines as conversational state, but persisted values are retained for all instances of that page (regardless of tabs or windows, meaning in practice that all active instances of that page share an identifier), so closing all instances would remove associated persisted values. More on this in this thread here: http://www.nabble.com/Persistance-td20732003.html#a20732003 was: Perhaps the most commonly reoccurring persistence pattern is 'per page', as opposed to session wide, or per request. Tapestry provides persistence strategies for the later of these, but there is no strategy that mirrors a pages 'implied' life-cycle. @Persist Provides session wide persistence across all pages: best used on primitives, a disadvantage is that its open for abuse by incorrect use which will clutter the session and increase its size thereby reducing scalability. @Persist("flash") A persisted object is removed after a post: - Not suited to all use cases that require 'page specific' persistence... render methods can sometimes prevent using flash persistence. Currently the most scalable pattern for simulating page state is using onActivate with onPassivate, and re-instantiating objects required for the page, generally from their identifiers. It requires more boilerplate code for checking that URL parameters are passed correctly, particularly for pages that have 'optional parameters'... the downside is more queries and having to use identifiers in URL parameters. @Persist("conversation") Seam provides this type of strategy, conversations provide a generally better persistence context, persistence is associated to a single window / tab, for which it retains state information between data requests/posts etc (whereas its relatives, which are other windows or tabs will be independent to the 'conversation') . Conversational state has been discussed in the past for Tapestry. @Persist("page") The proposed strategy is along the same lines as conversational state, but persisted values are retained for all instances of that page (regardless of tabs or windows, meaning in practice that all active instances of that page share an identifier), so closing all instances would remove ascociated persisted values. More on this in this thread here: http://www.nabble.com/Persistance-td20732003.html#a20732003 Some bad description corrected. > A persistence strategy to provide page specific state > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: TAP5-411 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-411 > Project: Tapestry 5 > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: tapestry-core > Affects Versions: 5.1 > Reporter: Peter Stavrinides > > Perhaps the most commonly reoccurring persistence pattern is 'per page', as > opposed to session wide, or per request. Tapestry provides persistence > strategies for the later of these, but there is no strategy that mirrors a > pages 'implied' life-cycle. > @Persist > Persists a value for a page for the duration of a session: best used on > primitives, a disadvantage is that its open for abuse by incorrect use which > will clutter the session and increase its size thereby reducing scalability. > @Persist("flash") > A persisted object is removed after a post: - Not suited to all use cases > that require 'page specific' persistence... render methods can sometimes > prevent using flash persistence. > Currently the most scalable pattern for simulating page state is using > onActivate with onPassivate, and re-instantiating objects required for the > page, generally from their identifiers. > It requires more boilerplate code for checking that URL parameters are passed > correctly, particularly for pages that have 'optional parameters'... the > downside is more queries and having to use identifiers in URL parameters. > @Persist("conversation") > Seam provides this type of strategy, conversations provide a generally better > persistence context, persistence is associated to a single window / tab, for > which it retains state information between data requests/posts etc (whereas > its relatives, which are other windows or tabs will be independent to the > 'conversation') . Conversational state has been discussed in the past for > Tapestry. > @Persist("?") > The proposed strategy is along the same lines as conversational state, but > persisted values are retained for all instances of that page (regardless of > tabs or windows, meaning in practice that all active instances of that page > share an identifier), so closing all instances would remove associated > persisted values. > More on this in this thread here: > http://www.nabble.com/Persistance-td20732003.html#a20732003 -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]