Guillaume Bilodeau schrieb: > Thank you Simon for your detailed answer! > > I've spent the last few months using Seam and I now realize that the term > "conversation" has a totally different meaning in Orchestra, as you > explained. The documentation does explain it clearly, I suppose initially I > went through it too quickly and assumed it was working like Seam. A > step-by-step tutorial using common use cases would greatly help in making > all this more clear though.
Well, I wouldn't say "totally different meaning". In both Seam and Orchestra, it is a scope that is longer than request but shorter than session. But Orchestra conversation scope is "more fine grained". I'll add a note to the docs to make this clear for Seam users. > > The conversation.access scope seems like a great way to implement flash > scope and that would especially useful for storing messages that need to > survive a redirect. Is there a common replacement for FacesContext.messages > and h:messages that uses this scope? No, there isn't. It's an interesting idea, but messages are stored as a field within the FacesContext, and a FacesContext is always a request-scoped object. So storing messages in the "conversation" instead is a significant behavioural change. And really we *do* want messages regenerated on each postback. I think a solution targeted specifically at the "keep messages over redirect" issue is useful, but using a conversation as storage isn't the right tool. By the way, other libs use the term "flash scope" to mean something rather different than Orchestra's "access scope". We did initially call our thing "flash scope" then renamed it when we realized it would cause confusion. Regards, Simon -- -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
