You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> on 2008/01/29 08:59:55 UTC
[orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Hi All,
Currently in orchestra there are two types of conversation scope: "manual" and "flash". With "manual", a conversation must be explicitly ended via either a call to the Orchestra API, or use of a jsf tag. With "flash", the conversation is automatically ended when a request cycle ends and no object in the conversation was accessed.
Some people have noted that other libraries use the term "flash scope" for a somewhat different purpose. I therefore propose changing the name to "access scope".
This change will mean renaming about 6 classes, updating the examples and updating the website documentation.
I intend to keep backwards compatibility with 1.0 to the level where normal Spring configuration files still work unaltered (and will test this by making sure the existing orchestra examples work unaltered, before I update them to show the "new" config).
However for classes which would only be used by people deriving their own custom scope-managers, etc., I don't currently plan to keep full binary compatibility.
Are there any objections?
Regards,
Simon
Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
> then maybe it should be named page-scope
:-)
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > will Trinidad ever be fixed to work with a flash-scope ;) ?
>
> I was referring to the fact that Trinidad does not work with t:saveState,
> due to the optimized state-saving. I wonder if this can/should be fixed at
> some point of time.
ah, well. I don't care :-)
>
>
> >
> > You are talking about Orchestra, aren't you ?
>
> no - see above.
>
> happy schöpfing,
gleichfalls
>
> Martin
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi Matthias,
from the commits looks like "flash" will be the alias for "access"
>
then maybe it should be named page-scope
>
> >
> > will Trinidad ever be fixed to work with a flash-scope ;) ?
>
I was referring to the fact that Trinidad does not work with t:saveState,
due to the optimized state-saving. I wonder if this can/should be fixed at
some point of time.
> You are talking about Orchestra, aren't you ?
no - see above.
happy schöpfing,
Martin
Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Jan 29, 2008 1:22 PM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> will there be a flash scope in Orchestra as well (as an option to using
> t:saveState)?
from the commits looks like "flash" will be the alias for "access"
>
> will Trinidad ever be fixed to work with a flash-scope ;) ?
I moved all my "flash" scopes to "manual", but I think
there was a fix related to that.
You are talking about Orchestra, aren't you ?
-M
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2008 12:25 PM, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > yes, good idea
> > +1
> >
> > I like the name "access scope" and also experienced people who use the
> > term "flash scope" for <t:saveState> usage.
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 29, 2008 8:59 AM, Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Currently in orchestra there are two types of conversation scope:
> "manual" and "flash". With "manual", a conversation must be explicitly ended
> via either a call to the Orchestra API, or use of a jsf tag. With "flash",
> the conversation is automatically ended when a request cycle ends and no
> object in the conversation was accessed.
> > >
> > > Some people have noted that other libraries use the term "flash scope"
> for a somewhat different purpose. I therefore propose changing the name to
> "access scope".
> > >
> > > This change will mean renaming about 6 classes, updating the examples
> and updating the website documentation.
> > >
> > > I intend to keep backwards compatibility with 1.0 to the level where
> normal Spring configuration files still work unaltered (and will test this
> by making sure the existing orchestra examples work unaltered, before I
> update them to show the "new" config).
> > >
> > > However for classes which would only be used by people deriving their
> own custom scope-managers, etc., I don't currently plan to keep full binary
> compatibility.
> > >
> > > Are there any objections?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > Development and Courses in English and
> > German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
will there be a flash scope in Orchestra as well (as an option to using
t:saveState)?
will Trinidad ever be fixed to work with a flash-scope ;) ?
regards,
Martin
On Jan 29, 2008 12:25 PM, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, good idea
> +1
>
> I like the name "access scope" and also experienced people who use the
> term "flash scope" for <t:saveState> usage.
>
> --Manfred
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2008 8:59 AM, Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Currently in orchestra there are two types of conversation scope:
> "manual" and "flash". With "manual", a conversation must be explicitly ended
> via either a call to the Orchestra API, or use of a jsf tag. With "flash",
> the conversation is automatically ended when a request cycle ends and no
> object in the conversation was accessed.
> >
> > Some people have noted that other libraries use the term "flash scope"
> for a somewhat different purpose. I therefore propose changing the name to
> "access scope".
> >
> > This change will mean renaming about 6 classes, updating the examples
> and updating the website documentation.
> >
> > I intend to keep backwards compatibility with 1.0 to the level where
> normal Spring configuration files still work unaltered (and will test this
> by making sure the existing orchestra examples work unaltered, before I
> update them to show the "new" config).
> >
> > However for classes which would only be used by people deriving their
> own custom scope-managers, etc., I don't currently plan to keep full binary
> compatibility.
> >
> > Are there any objections?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
yes, good idea
+1
I like the name "access scope" and also experienced people who use the
term "flash scope" for <t:saveState> usage.
--Manfred
On Jan 29, 2008 8:59 AM, Simon Kitching <si...@chello.at> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Currently in orchestra there are two types of conversation scope: "manual" and "flash". With "manual", a conversation must be explicitly ended via either a call to the Orchestra API, or use of a jsf tag. With "flash", the conversation is automatically ended when a request cycle ends and no object in the conversation was accessed.
>
> Some people have noted that other libraries use the term "flash scope" for a somewhat different purpose. I therefore propose changing the name to "access scope".
>
> This change will mean renaming about 6 classes, updating the examples and updating the website documentation.
>
> I intend to keep backwards compatibility with 1.0 to the level where normal Spring configuration files still work unaltered (and will test this by making sure the existing orchestra examples work unaltered, before I update them to show the "new" config).
>
> However for classes which would only be used by people deriving their own custom scope-managers, etc., I don't currently plan to keep full binary compatibility.
>
> Are there any objections?
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
"access" says exactly what it does. keeps the conversation active as
long as it is accessed - ie. as long as any bean in this conversation
is used during the next request.
--Manfred
On Jan 29, 2008 9:32 PM, Kito D. Mann <km...@virtua.com> wrote:
> Hmmm... I agree that "flash" can be misleading, but "access" doesn't seem very descriptive to me. I think "page" or "view" might be more appropriate.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Kitching [mailto:simon.kitching@chello.at]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:00 AM
> > To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
> > Subject: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Currently in orchestra there are two types of conversation scope:
> > "manual" and "flash". With "manual", a conversation must be explicitly
> > ended via either a call to the Orchestra API, or use of a jsf tag. With
> > "flash", the conversation is automatically ended when a request cycle
> > ends and no object in the conversation was accessed.
> >
> > Some people have noted that other libraries use the term "flash scope"
> > for a somewhat different purpose. I therefore propose changing the name
> > to "access scope".
> >
> > This change will mean renaming about 6 classes, updating the examples
> > and updating the website documentation.
> >
> > I intend to keep backwards compatibility with 1.0 to the level where
> > normal Spring configuration files still work unaltered (and will test
> > this by making sure the existing orchestra examples work unaltered,
> > before I update them to show the "new" config).
> >
> > However for classes which would only be used by people deriving their
> > own custom scope-managers, etc., I don't currently plan to keep full
> > binary compatibility.
> >
> > Are there any objections?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> Hmmm... I agree that "flash" can be misleading, but "access" doesn't seem very descriptive to me. I think "page" or "view" might be more appropriate.
>
As it is currently in Orchestra, the fomer flash-scope is exactly an
access-scope. As long as the bean is accessed it stay alive, regardles
of the page it is used on.
page or view are different scopes where one assumes that the bean
vanishes as soon as another page is navigated to even if a conversation
with the same name will be used here.
We can discuss if such a scope makes sense for Orchestra .... I guess not.
Ciao,
Mario
RE: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by "Kito D. Mann" <km...@virtua.com>.
Hmmm... I agree that "flash" can be misleading, but "access" doesn't seem very descriptive to me. I think "page" or "view" might be more appropriate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Kitching [mailto:simon.kitching@chello.at]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:00 AM
> To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
> Subject: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
>
> Hi All,
>
> Currently in orchestra there are two types of conversation scope:
> "manual" and "flash". With "manual", a conversation must be explicitly
> ended via either a call to the Orchestra API, or use of a jsf tag. With
> "flash", the conversation is automatically ended when a request cycle
> ends and no object in the conversation was accessed.
>
> Some people have noted that other libraries use the term "flash scope"
> for a somewhat different purpose. I therefore propose changing the name
> to "access scope".
>
> This change will mean renaming about 6 classes, updating the examples
> and updating the website documentation.
>
> I intend to keep backwards compatibility with 1.0 to the level where
> normal Spring configuration files still work unaltered (and will test
> this by making sure the existing orchestra examples work unaltered,
> before I update them to show the "new" config).
>
> However for classes which would only be used by people deriving their
> own custom scope-managers, etc., I don't currently plan to keep full
> binary compatibility.
>
> Are there any objections?
>
> Regards,
> Simon
Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
That sounds very good.
Do you guys plan to release the bits soon as well ?
-M
On Jan 29, 2008 9:03 AM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi Simon!
> > Are there any objections?
> >
> Sounds good!
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi Simon!
> Are there any objections?
>
Sounds good!
Ciao,
Mario