After looking at the source I'm thinking that using a wildcard to specify a
no-conversation-view-id for a group of pages isn't currently possible. Is that
right? Shouldn't it be? Generally I have several groups of pages that each
constitute an individual conversation, but they are not really complex enough
to merit pageflows in my opinion. They all look very much the same: the
conversation is started by an action within pages.xml before the first page is
displayed, and the rest of the pages/actions are conversation and protected
either through a wildcard page-action or the @Conversational annotation.
Otherwise, there is nothing to differentiate those internal pages from each
other so it would be nice to just say:
<page view-id="/group-starter" action="#{conversation.begin}"/>
|
| <page view-id="/group/*" no-conversation-view-id="/group-starter"
action="#{conversationUtils.conversational}"/>
rather than creating a page element for every individual page within the
conversation.
This actually feeds into some other issues like the fact that wildcard actions
occur first, which means that I cannot easily group all of the pages together
(if my example /group-starter page was instead /group/group-starter, the
#{conversationUtils.conversational} action would fire first never allowing the
#{conversation.begin} action to occur) but maybe that's best left for another
post.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3983120#3983120
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3983120
_______________________________________________
jboss-user mailing list
jboss-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
