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
> >
> > 038 public Object getAttribute(String name)
> > 039 {
> > 040 return _session.getAttribute(name);
> > 041 }
> > becomes
> > 038 public Object getAttribute(String name)
> > 039 {
> > 040 return _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" <users@tapestry.apache.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > An
> > > > Tapestry users <users@tapestry.apache.org>
> > > > 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.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
