Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
Hi Kristian,
In Seam their "conversation" solves the problem of multiple windows or
tabs in the same browser. When you say "conversation" are you
addressing that too? That would be sensational, because I have no
idea how they achieve it. If you are in a window and choose New
Window with your settings set to open the same page in the new window,
then I have no idea how they split to a new conversation.
For people unfamiliar with conversations, they discuss it here:
http://labs.jboss.com/jbossseam/faq/#state
Cheers,
Geoff
On 19/12/2007, at 7:30 AM, Kristian Marinkovic wrote:
Hi all,
i'm currently implementing a conversation module (similar to seam)
by defining an own persistence strategy. i thought of an explicit
and an implicit mode for conversations. The explicit mode requires
that every persistent field within a conversation is annotated with
@Persist("conversation"). the implicit mode would replace the given
persistence strategy of any annotated field in a page with
"conversation".
Can someone help me how to solve this problem? The
PersistentFieldManager sets default strategies (@Meta) but cannot be
overriden on a per page base.
any suggestions? thanks
g,kris
- To
unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
If you allow for nested conversations, then the session could just be a
default conversation that lasts for as long as the session. Inherently
then, all subsequent conversations will be encapsulated by this default
conversation at the very least - a bit like all objects in Java are
java.lang.Object.
Nested conversations are useful to allow for short diversions from a
main conversation - for example popping up a dictionary dialog when
filling in a form.
The default session persistence strategy can then be simply replaced
with the conversation strategy and assumed to be a default top level
conversation.
How does that sound?
Richard
Davor Hrg wrote:
sound ok,
looking forward to trying it :)
Davor Hrg
On Dec 21, 2007 10:25 AM, Kristian Marinkovic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
its getting really interesting
Josh+Davor: your're right "flash" should as well be part of the
conversation context.
a small summary of my implementation so far:
if a conversation is started a ConversationContext is created and stored
in
a ConversationTracker and the created conversation id is appended to the
URL. The ConversationTracker itself is then stored as an ASO using the
ApplicationStateManager. In implicit mode every field with an @Persist
annotation is stored in the ConversationContext (if a conversation is
active).
ASOs are not part of the conversation because they are considered global,
application-wide data objects. I did not replace the Session because it
seemed
to invasive to me.
What do you think about this approach? is it viable? Should some ASOs be
marked as part of the conversation?
I hope i can make my source available in 3 weeks when i get approval from
my superior.
btw. i could solve my originally stated question by providing a Decorator
for the PersistentFieldManager that intercepts postChange method calls
and rerout every persistent field to the ConversationFieldStrategy
implementation.
just a sidenote... my conversation implementation will then be used for
pageflows :)
"Josh Canfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gesendet von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21.12.2007 00:43
Bitte antworten an
"Tapestry users"
An
"Tapestry users"
Kopie
Thema
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation
strategy
Yeah, I'm not convinced either. Also, ApplicationState for instance should
probably be stored outside of the context of a conversation as well...
Josh
On Dec 20, 2007 2:03 PM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you are right, that is more usefull.
instead introducing conversation to field level,
it should be set at page/component level.
flash is I suppose already session specific and should be
also conversation specific,
but I'm still not convinced that something should be done to
those that explicitly state @Persist("session")
Davor Hrg
On Dec 20, 2007 7:03 PM, Josh Canfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I think Flash persistence would also want to be in the context of the
conversation, otherwise couldn't messages show up in the second window
that
were intended for the first (perhaps with a slow connection to the
server?)
Without having spent much time thinking about this (and never having
used
Seam), it feels like a promising direction would be to redefine what a
session means for your application.
Tapestry already wraps the javax.servlet.http.HttpSession when it's
created
in the Request object. Would it make sense to replace that
implementation
with a ConversationSession that implements the Session interface but
compartmentalizes the session by whatever it is that you are using for
context?
So in
http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html
<
http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html#line.29
> 038public Object getAttribute(String name)
039{
040return _session.getAttribute(name);
041}
becomes
038public Object getAttribute(String name)
039{
040return _session.getAttribute(_myContextId).get(name);
041}
where _myContextId results in a map of context specific attributes...
Admittedly I haven't coded anything around this idea so there could be
some
fatal flaws, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Josh
On Dec 20, 2007 12:25 AM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems you are trying too hard to fix user mistakes,
a developer using the conversation persistence strategy must be
aware
of
it
and code accordingly. Forcing a specific persistence strategy can
also
cause
undesired behaviours (f
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
sound ok,
looking forward to trying it :)
Davor Hrg
On Dec 21, 2007 10:25 AM, Kristian Marinkovic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> its getting really interesting
>
> Josh+Davor: your're right "flash" should as well be part of the
> conversation context.
>
> a small summary of my implementation so far:
> if a conversation is started a ConversationContext is created and stored
> in
> a ConversationTracker and the created conversation id is appended to the
> URL. The ConversationTracker itself is then stored as an ASO using the
> ApplicationStateManager. In implicit mode every field with an @Persist
> annotation is stored in the ConversationContext (if a conversation is
> active).
> ASOs are not part of the conversation because they are considered global,
> application-wide data objects. I did not replace the Session because it
> seemed
> to invasive to me.
>
> What do you think about this approach? is it viable? Should some ASOs be
> marked as part of the conversation?
>
> I hope i can make my source available in 3 weeks when i get approval from
> my superior.
>
>
> btw. i could solve my originally stated question by providing a Decorator
> for the PersistentFieldManager that intercepts postChange method calls
> and rerout every persistent field to the ConversationFieldStrategy
> implementation.
>
> just a sidenote... my conversation implementation will then be used for
> pageflows :)
>
>
>
>
> "Josh Canfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Gesendet von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 21.12.2007 00:43
>
> Bitte antworten an
> "Tapestry users"
>
>
> An
> "Tapestry users"
> Kopie
>
> Thema
> Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation
> strategy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, I'm not convinced either. Also, ApplicationState for instance should
> probably be stored outside of the context of a conversation as well...
>
> Josh
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 2:03 PM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > you are right, that is more usefull.
> >
> > instead introducing conversation to field level,
> > it should be set at page/component level.
> >
> > flash is I suppose already session specific and should be
> > also conversation specific,
> > but I'm still not convinced that something should be done to
> > those that explicitly state @Persist("session")
> >
> > Davor Hrg
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 7:03 PM, Josh Canfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I think Flash persistence would also want to be in the context of the
> > > conversation, otherwise couldn't messages show up in the second window
> > that
> > > were intended for the first (perhaps with a slow connection to the
> > server?)
> > >
> > > Without having spent much time thinking about this (and never having
> > used
> > > Seam), it feels like a promising direction would be to redefine what a
> > > session means for your application.
> > >
> > > Tapestry already wraps the javax.servlet.http.HttpSession when it's
> > created
> > > in the Request object. Would it make sense to replace that
> > implementation
> > > with a ConversationSession that implements the Session interface but
> > > compartmentalizes the session by whatever it is that you are using for
> > > context?
> > >
> > > So in
> > >
> >
> http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html
>
> > <
> >
> http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html#line.29
>
> > >
> > > 038public Object getAttribute(String name)
> > > 039{
> > > 040return _session.getAttribute(name);
> > > 041}
> > > becomes
> > > 038public Object getAttribute(String name)
> > > 039{
> > > 040return _session.getAttribute(_myContextId).get(name);
> > > 041}
> > > where _myContextId results in a map of context specific attributes...
> > >
> > > Admittedly I haven't coded anything around this idea so there could be
> > some
> > > fatal flaws, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
> > >
> > > Josh
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 12:25 AM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It seems you are trying t
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
its getting really interesting
Josh+Davor: your're right "flash" should as well be part of the
conversation context.
a small summary of my implementation so far:
if a conversation is started a ConversationContext is created and stored
in
a ConversationTracker and the created conversation id is appended to the
URL. The ConversationTracker itself is then stored as an ASO using the
ApplicationStateManager. In implicit mode every field with an @Persist
annotation is stored in the ConversationContext (if a conversation is
active).
ASOs are not part of the conversation because they are considered global,
application-wide data objects. I did not replace the Session because it
seemed
to invasive to me.
What do you think about this approach? is it viable? Should some ASOs be
marked as part of the conversation?
I hope i can make my source available in 3 weeks when i get approval from
my superior.
btw. i could solve my originally stated question by providing a Decorator
for the PersistentFieldManager that intercepts postChange method calls
and rerout every persistent field to the ConversationFieldStrategy
implementation.
just a sidenote... my conversation implementation will then be used for
pageflows :)
"Josh Canfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gesendet von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21.12.2007 00:43
Bitte antworten an
"Tapestry users"
An
"Tapestry users"
Kopie
Thema
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation
strategy
Yeah, I'm not convinced either. Also, ApplicationState for instance should
probably be stored outside of the context of a conversation as well...
Josh
On Dec 20, 2007 2:03 PM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you are right, that is more usefull.
>
> instead introducing conversation to field level,
> it should be set at page/component level.
>
> flash is I suppose already session specific and should be
> also conversation specific,
> but I'm still not convinced that something should be done to
> those that explicitly state @Persist("session")
>
> Davor Hrg
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 7:03 PM, Josh Canfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think Flash persistence would also want to be in the context of the
> > conversation, otherwise couldn't messages show up in the second window
> that
> > were intended for the first (perhaps with a slow connection to the
> server?)
> >
> > Without having spent much time thinking about this (and never having
> used
> > Seam), it feels like a promising direction would be to redefine what a
> > session means for your application.
> >
> > Tapestry already wraps the javax.servlet.http.HttpSession when it's
> created
> > in the Request object. Would it make sense to replace that
> implementation
> > with a ConversationSession that implements the Session interface but
> > compartmentalizes the session by whatever it is that you are using for
> > context?
> >
> > So in
> >
>
http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html
> <
>
http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html#line.29
> >
> > 038public Object getAttribute(String name)
> > 039{
> > 040return _session.getAttribute(name);
> > 041}
> > becomes
> > 038public Object getAttribute(String name)
> > 039{
> > 040return _session.getAttribute(_myContextId).get(name);
> > 041}
> > where _myContextId results in a map of context specific attributes...
> >
> > Admittedly I haven't coded anything around this idea so there could be
> some
> > fatal flaws, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 12:25 AM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems you are trying too hard to fix user mistakes,
> > >
> > > a developer using the conversation persistence strategy must be
aware
> of
> > > it
> > > and code accordingly. Forcing a specific persistence strategy can
also
> > > cause
> > > undesired behaviours (for example error messages that use
> > > @Persist("flash"))
> > >
> > > these are just my thoughts on the subject, I haven't really looked
> deeper
> > > into
> > > persistence strategies...
> > >
> > > Davor Hrg
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 9:20 AM, Kristian Marinkovic
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> &
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
Yeah, I'm not convinced either. Also, ApplicationState for instance should
probably be stored outside of the context of a conversation as well...
Josh
On Dec 20, 2007 2:03 PM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you are right, that is more usefull.
>
> instead introducing conversation to field level,
> it should be set at page/component level.
>
> flash is I suppose already session specific and should be
> also conversation specific,
> but I'm still not convinced that something should be done to
> those that explicitly state @Persist("session")
>
> Davor Hrg
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 7:03 PM, Josh Canfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think Flash persistence would also want to be in the context of the
> > conversation, otherwise couldn't messages show up in the second window
> that
> > were intended for the first (perhaps with a slow connection to the
> server?)
> >
> > Without having spent much time thinking about this (and never having
> used
> > Seam), it feels like a promising direction would be to redefine what a
> > session means for your application.
> >
> > Tapestry already wraps the javax.servlet.http.HttpSession when it's
> created
> > in the Request object. Would it make sense to replace that
> implementation
> > with a ConversationSession that implements the Session interface but
> > compartmentalizes the session by whatever it is that you are using for
> > context?
> >
> > So in
> >
> http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html
> <
> http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html#line.29
> >
> > 038public Object getAttribute(String name)
> > 039{
> > 040return _session.getAttribute(name);
> > 041}
> > becomes
> > 038public Object getAttribute(String name)
> > 039{
> > 040return _session.getAttribute(_myContextId).get(name);
> > 041}
> > where _myContextId results in a map of context specific attributes...
> >
> > Admittedly I haven't coded anything around this idea so there could be
> some
> > fatal flaws, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 12:25 AM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems you are trying too hard to fix user mistakes,
> > >
> > > a developer using the conversation persistence strategy must be aware
> of
> > > it
> > > and code accordingly. Forcing a specific persistence strategy can also
> > > cause
> > > undesired behaviours (for example error messages that use
> > > @Persist("flash"))
> > >
> > > these are just my thoughts on the subject, I haven't really looked
> deeper
> > > into
> > > persistence strategies...
> > >
> > > Davor Hrg
> > >
> > > On Dec 20, 2007 9:20 AM, Kristian Marinkovic
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > hi filip,
> > > >
> > > > @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") only works if
> the
> > > > @Persist annotation does not specify a strategy. I want to override
> the
> > > > strategy even if
> > > > the developer has set it to a specific strategy so whenever a
> > > > conversation is started
> > > > the values of all persistent fields will be saved in the
> conversation.
> > > And
> > > > i want to be able
> > > > to switch it on or off during runtime because it should be able to
> use
> > > the
> > > > same page with
> > > > or without a conversation context.
> > > >
> > > > I think i've too look harder :) ... If i succeed i'll put my
> solution
> > > > open-source somewhere... :)
> > > >
> > > > g,
> > > > kris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Filip S. Adamsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > 19.12.2007 18:29
> > > > Bitte antworten an
> > > > "Tapestry users"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > An
> > > > Tapestry users
> > > > Kopie
> > > >
> > > > Thema
> > > > Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to
> conv
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
you are right, that is more usefull.
instead introducing conversation to field level,
it should be set at page/component level.
flash is I suppose already session specific and should be
also conversation specific,
but I'm still not convinced that something should be done to
those that explicitly state @Persist("session")
Davor Hrg
On Dec 20, 2007 7:03 PM, Josh Canfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think Flash persistence would also want to be in the context of the
> conversation, otherwise couldn't messages show up in the second window that
> were intended for the first (perhaps with a slow connection to the server?)
>
> Without having spent much time thinking about this (and never having used
> Seam), it feels like a promising direction would be to redefine what a
> session means for your application.
>
> Tapestry already wraps the javax.servlet.http.HttpSession when it's created
> in the Request object. Would it make sense to replace that implementation
> with a ConversationSession that implements the Session interface but
> compartmentalizes the session by whatever it is that you are using for
> context?
>
> So in
> http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html<http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html#line.29>
> 038public Object getAttribute(String name)
> 039{
> 040return _session.getAttribute(name);
> 041}
> becomes
> 038public Object getAttribute(String name)
> 039{
> 040return _session.getAttribute(_myContextId).get(name);
> 041}
> where _myContextId results in a map of context specific attributes...
>
> Admittedly I haven't coded anything around this idea so there could be some
> fatal flaws, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
>
> Josh
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 12:25 AM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It seems you are trying too hard to fix user mistakes,
> >
> > a developer using the conversation persistence strategy must be aware of
> > it
> > and code accordingly. Forcing a specific persistence strategy can also
> > cause
> > undesired behaviours (for example error messages that use
> > @Persist("flash"))
> >
> > these are just my thoughts on the subject, I haven't really looked deeper
> > into
> > persistence strategies...
> >
> > Davor Hrg
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2007 9:20 AM, Kristian Marinkovic
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > hi filip,
> > >
> > > @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") only works if the
> > > @Persist annotation does not specify a strategy. I want to override the
> > > strategy even if
> > > the developer has set it to a specific strategy so whenever a
> > > conversation is started
> > > the values of all persistent fields will be saved in the conversation.
> > And
> > > i want to be able
> > > to switch it on or off during runtime because it should be able to use
> > the
> > > same page with
> > > or without a conversation context.
> > >
> > > I think i've too look harder :) ... If i succeed i'll put my solution
> > > open-source somewhere... :)
> > >
> > > g,
> > > kris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Filip S. Adamsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 19.12.2007 18:29
> > > Bitte antworten an
> > > "Tapestry users"
> > >
> > >
> > > An
> > > Tapestry users
> > > Kopie
> > >
> > > Thema
> > > Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation
> > > strategy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Stick a @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") annotation
> > > on your page class?
> > >
> > > -Filip
> > >
> > > Kristian Marinkovic skrev:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > i'm currently implementing a conversation module (similar to seam) by
> > > > defining an own persistence strategy. i thought of an explicit and an
> > > > implicit mode for conversations. The explicit mode requires that every
> > > > persistent field within a conversation is annotated with
> > > > @Persist("conversa
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
Hello,
I think Flash persistence would also want to be in the context of the
conversation, otherwise couldn't messages show up in the second window that
were intended for the first (perhaps with a slow connection to the server?)
Without having spent much time thinking about this (and never having used
Seam), it feels like a promising direction would be to redefine what a
session means for your application.
Tapestry already wraps the javax.servlet.http.HttpSession when it's created
in the Request object. Would it make sense to replace that implementation
with a ConversationSession that implements the Session interface but
compartmentalizes the session by whatever it is that you are using for
context?
So in
http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html<http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/apidocs/src-html/org/apache/tapestry/internal/services/SessionImpl.html#line.29>
038public Object getAttribute(String name)
039{
040return _session.getAttribute(name);
041}
becomes
038public Object getAttribute(String name)
039{
040return _session.getAttribute(_myContextId).get(name);
041}
where _myContextId results in a map of context specific attributes...
Admittedly I haven't coded anything around this idea so there could be some
fatal flaws, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Josh
On Dec 20, 2007 12:25 AM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems you are trying too hard to fix user mistakes,
>
> a developer using the conversation persistence strategy must be aware of
> it
> and code accordingly. Forcing a specific persistence strategy can also
> cause
> undesired behaviours (for example error messages that use
> @Persist("flash"))
>
> these are just my thoughts on the subject, I haven't really looked deeper
> into
> persistence strategies...
>
> Davor Hrg
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 9:20 AM, Kristian Marinkovic
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hi filip,
> >
> > @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") only works if the
> > @Persist annotation does not specify a strategy. I want to override the
> > strategy even if
> > the developer has set it to a specific strategy so whenever a
> > conversation is started
> > the values of all persistent fields will be saved in the conversation.
> And
> > i want to be able
> > to switch it on or off during runtime because it should be able to use
> the
> > same page with
> > or without a conversation context.
> >
> > I think i've too look harder :) ... If i succeed i'll put my solution
> > open-source somewhere... :)
> >
> > g,
> > kris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Filip S. Adamsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 19.12.2007 18:29
> > Bitte antworten an
> > "Tapestry users"
> >
> >
> > An
> > Tapestry users
> > Kopie
> >
> > Thema
> > Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation
> > strategy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stick a @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") annotation
> > on your page class?
> >
> > -Filip
> >
> > Kristian Marinkovic skrev:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > i'm currently implementing a conversation module (similar to seam) by
> > > defining an own persistence strategy. i thought of an explicit and an
> > > implicit mode for conversations. The explicit mode requires that every
> > > persistent field within a conversation is annotated with
> > > @Persist("conversation"). the implicit mode would replace the given
> > > persistence strategy of any annotated field in a page with
> > "conversation".
> > >
> > > Can someone help me how to solve this problem? The
> > > PersistentFieldManager sets default strategies (@Meta) but cannot be
> > > overriden on a per page base.
> > >
> > > any suggestions? thanks
> > >
> > > g,kris
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> To
> >
> > > unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
> > > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--
TheDailyTube.com. Sign up and get the best new videos on the internet
delivered fresh to your inbox.
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
Kristian Marinkovic wrote: hi davor, Hi, Sorry I jump in the thread, you're right... "flash" will be an excpetion :)... the problem is that if you use components (libraries) of other teams or third party components that persist values in the session you still want to be able to use it in a conversation without changing the component. But in library, components just use the default persistence strategy. If a strategy is specified, it should be for a meaningful reason. Perhaps they have define there own strategy. So I think that you should just give the possibility to change the default strategy, not impose it. Moreover, libraries may evolve to use your strategy with their constrains - nobody better that the dev of a component know what may break with a modification. making it easy to use for developers is also a goal. That's a good goal :) (I'm a dev after all, and a lazy one ;) Just remember that there is no free lunch, and be careful if you attempt to interpret there will. -- Francois Armand Etudes & Développements J2EE Groupe Linagora - http://www.linagora.com Tél.: +33 (0)1 58 18 68 28 --- InterLDAP - http://interldap.org FederID - http://www.federid.org/ Open Source identities management and federation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
hi davor,
you're right... "flash" will be an excpetion :)... the problem is that if
you use
components (libraries) of other teams or third party components that
persist
values in the session you still want to be able to use it in a
conversation without
changing the component.
making it easy to use for developers is also a goal. for example if you
have
fields with @Persist("conversation") and there is no active conversation
context
it should default to "session".
my options as i see it right now are to replace the PersistentFieldManager
service mit my own implementation or to refactor the
PersistentFieldManager
contribution to add injected PersistentFieldStrategy services instead of
instantiating
them with new. This would give me the freedom to add some decorators
what do you think?
g,
kris
"Davor Hrg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20.12.2007 09:25
Bitte antworten an
"Tapestry users"
An
"Tapestry users"
Kopie
Thema
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation
strategy
It seems you are trying too hard to fix user mistakes,
a developer using the conversation persistence strategy must be aware of
it
and code accordingly. Forcing a specific persistence strategy can also
cause
undesired behaviours (for example error messages that use
@Persist("flash"))
these are just my thoughts on the subject, I haven't really looked deeper
into
persistence strategies...
Davor Hrg
On Dec 20, 2007 9:20 AM, Kristian Marinkovic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi filip,
>
> @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") only works if the
> @Persist annotation does not specify a strategy. I want to override the
> strategy even if
> the developer has set it to a specific strategy so whenever a
> conversation is started
> the values of all persistent fields will be saved in the conversation.
And
> i want to be able
> to switch it on or off during runtime because it should be able to use
the
> same page with
> or without a conversation context.
>
> I think i've too look harder :) ... If i succeed i'll put my solution
> open-source somewhere... :)
>
> g,
> kris
>
>
>
>
> "Filip S. Adamsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 19.12.2007 18:29
> Bitte antworten an
> "Tapestry users"
>
>
> An
> Tapestry users
> Kopie
>
> Thema
> Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation
> strategy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stick a @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") annotation
> on your page class?
>
> -Filip
>
> Kristian Marinkovic skrev:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > i'm currently implementing a conversation module (similar to seam) by
> > defining an own persistence strategy. i thought of an explicit and an
> > implicit mode for conversations. The explicit mode requires that every
> > persistent field within a conversation is annotated with
> > @Persist("conversation"). the implicit mode would replace the given
> > persistence strategy of any annotated field in a page with
> "conversation".
> >
> > Can someone help me how to solve this problem? The
> > PersistentFieldManager sets default strategies (@Meta) but cannot be
> > overriden on a per page base.
> >
> > any suggestions? thanks
> >
> > g,kris
> >
> >
> > -
To
>
> > unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
> > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
It seems you are trying too hard to fix user mistakes,
a developer using the conversation persistence strategy must be aware of it
and code accordingly. Forcing a specific persistence strategy can also cause
undesired behaviours (for example error messages that use @Persist("flash"))
these are just my thoughts on the subject, I haven't really looked deeper into
persistence strategies...
Davor Hrg
On Dec 20, 2007 9:20 AM, Kristian Marinkovic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi filip,
>
> @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") only works if the
> @Persist annotation does not specify a strategy. I want to override the
> strategy even if
> the developer has set it to a specific strategy so whenever a
> conversation is started
> the values of all persistent fields will be saved in the conversation. And
> i want to be able
> to switch it on or off during runtime because it should be able to use the
> same page with
> or without a conversation context.
>
> I think i've too look harder :) ... If i succeed i'll put my solution
> open-source somewhere... :)
>
> g,
> kris
>
>
>
>
> "Filip S. Adamsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 19.12.2007 18:29
> Bitte antworten an
> "Tapestry users"
>
>
> An
> Tapestry users
> Kopie
>
> Thema
> Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation
> strategy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stick a @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") annotation
> on your page class?
>
> -Filip
>
> Kristian Marinkovic skrev:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > i'm currently implementing a conversation module (similar to seam) by
> > defining an own persistence strategy. i thought of an explicit and an
> > implicit mode for conversations. The explicit mode requires that every
> > persistent field within a conversation is annotated with
> > @Persist("conversation"). the implicit mode would replace the given
> > persistence strategy of any annotated field in a page with
> "conversation".
> >
> > Can someone help me how to solve this problem? The
> > PersistentFieldManager sets default strategies (@Meta) but cannot be
> > overriden on a per page base.
> >
> > any suggestions? thanks
> >
> > g,kris
> >
> >
> > - To
>
> > unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
> > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
hi filip,
@Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") only works if the
@Persist annotation does not specify a strategy. I want to override the
strategy even if
the developer has set it to a specific strategy so whenever a
conversation is started
the values of all persistent fields will be saved in the conversation. And
i want to be able
to switch it on or off during runtime because it should be able to use the
same page with
or without a conversation context.
I think i've too look harder :) ... If i succeed i'll put my solution
open-source somewhere... :)
g,
kris
"Filip S. Adamsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19.12.2007 18:29
Bitte antworten an
"Tapestry users"
An
Tapestry users
Kopie
Thema
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation
strategy
Stick a @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") annotation
on your page class?
-Filip
Kristian Marinkovic skrev:
>
> Hi all,
>
> i'm currently implementing a conversation module (similar to seam) by
> defining an own persistence strategy. i thought of an explicit and an
> implicit mode for conversations. The explicit mode requires that every
> persistent field within a conversation is annotated with
> @Persist("conversation"). the implicit mode would replace the given
> persistence strategy of any annotated field in a page with
"conversation".
>
> Can someone help me how to solve this problem? The
> PersistentFieldManager sets default strategies (@Meta) but cannot be
> overriden on a per page base.
>
> any suggestions? thanks
>
> g,kris
>
>
> - To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
> additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
Stick a @Meta("tapestry.persistence-strategy=conversation") annotation
on your page class?
-Filip
Kristian Marinkovic skrev:
Hi all,
i'm currently implementing a conversation module (similar to seam) by
defining an own persistence strategy. i thought of an explicit and an
implicit mode for conversations. The explicit mode requires that every
persistent field within a conversation is annotated with
@Persist("conversation"). the implicit mode would replace the given
persistence strategy of any annotated field in a page with "conversation".
Can someone help me how to solve this problem? The
PersistentFieldManager sets default strategies (@Meta) but cannot be
overriden on a per page base.
any suggestions? thanks
g,kris
- To
unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[T5] overriding persistence strategy of all fields to conversation strategy
Hi all,i'm currently implementing a conversation module (similar to seam) by defining an own persistence strategy. i thought of an explicit and an implicit mode for conversations. The explicit mode requires that every persistent field within a conversation is annotated with @Persist("conversation"). the implicit mode would replace the given persistence strategy of any annotated field in a page with "conversation". Can someone help me how to solve this problem? The PersistentFieldManager sets default strategies (@Meta) but cannot be overriden on a per page base.any suggestions? thanksg,kris
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
