a clem schrieb: > Thank's a lot for your response. What I would like to do is to be able > to share a page (ant its backing bean) between 2 conversations types, > like an activity définition can be shared between 2 process definition > in BPM. For exemple, the select customer page can be shared between > the 'send mail' and 'send invoice' use cases. I think I'm going to > hack the source to see how I can achieve this. > > Regards, > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:18 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 22:36 +0200, a clem wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm currently playing with this great framework Orchestra, trying to >> > build some small examples and a few questions came to my mind: >> > Is it possible to start a new conversation explicitly >> > (programitically). I've looked to the API but there doesn't seem to be >> > something like a begin or start method in it? >> >> Well, there are two answers to this :-) >> >> (1) >> >> If you configure a bean A in Spring to inject some other bean B that is >> configured in a conversation scope, then what is actually injected is a >> proxy. The bean B isn't actually created, and the conversation is not >> created to hold it (though the conversation might already exist if there >> are multiple beans in the same conversation). >> >> Then if A invokes any method on B, that triggers the creation of an >> actual instance of B plus the conversation to hold it (if the >> conversation does not yet exist). >> >> So I guess you could call that "programmatic" creation of a >> conversation; whether B is in the conversation or not is controlled by >> what A does. >> >> (2) >> But if you mean actually creating a Conversation object then placing >> objects in it, then no I don't think that is currently possible (or at >> least not easy). >> >> In theory there is no reason why Orchestra couldn't support that, I just >> think we didn't consider it useful. If there is a good use case then I'm >> sure that could be added. >> >> The principle is simple: create a Conversation object then get a >> reference to the current ConversationContext and add it. But the problem >> is that there are a bunch of settings that a conversation can have which >> are defined by a ConversationFactory (which is a mandatory parameter to >> the Conversation constructor at the moment). This factory is really >> expected to be a Spring scope manager object or similar; I don't know if >> it is possible to look this up nicely, or whether it is actually needed >> for manually-created conversations. But the settings would need to be >> defined somewhere. >> >> Method ConversationManager.getConversation(name) will return >> conversations by name, but returns null if the conversation does not >> exist; I don't think there is a way of forcing it to exist. >> >> Note that a bean which is *already* in a conversation can add extra >> objects to its own conversation via Conversation.setAttribute. >> >> >> > Can the same backing bean belong to more that one conversation type? >> > In other world can I share a view between multiples conversations? It >> > seem's that backing beans can only have one conversation name. >> >> No, a bean is expected to be in only one conversation. I think things >> would get quite confusing otherwise. For a start, if persistence is >> being used with conversations, then a bean could have two persistence >> contexts associated with it simultaneously which would be tricky :-) >> >> A bean in one conversation can quite happily call a bean in another >> conversation of course (orchestra conversations are not like WebFlow or >> Seam conversations). >> >> What would the use case be for this? >> >> >> > And >> > finally, is it possible to have nested conversation contexts? Thank's >> > for all your coming responses! :) >> >> No, but that feature is definitely on the to-do list. >> >> Orchestra does support multiple concurrent named conversations, as I'm >> sure you're aware. That solves many of the use-cases for nested >> conversations but not all of them. >> >> Good questions - I should put these on the Orchestra wiki FAQ page. >> Unless perhaps you would be willing to do that? >> >> Regards, >> Simon >> You can have two instances of the same bean class in two different conversations without problems.
But to have the *same* instance in two different conversations still doesn't make sense to me. Your example of "pages" doesn't clarify this for me; orchestra is not about "pages", but about beans (some of which may be backing beans). Regards, Simon
