You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> on 2007/11/09 09:16:12 UTC
[ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Hi guys,
I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
release. We should dress warmer here ;)
regards,
Martin
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi Mario,
we are talking about navigation here, you about beans.
Problem:
there is a wizard for editing a person - you can start this wizard
from the person-list, but also from the company list. After you have
finished editing the person, you want to return to the list you
started at. How do you configure this?
Its definitely a good idea to also support a managed bean per wizard,
that's for sure.
regards,
Martin
On Nov 9, 2007 12:02 PM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am not sure if I talk about the same, but ....
>
> In Orchestra it is all about beans. What would be nice is, if we could
> define a page-flow (state A) having it's own set of beans and being able
> to enter the page-flow (state B) again and having a new set of beans
> then (effectively the same bean/el names but the views will see
> different instances). Once state B finished state A will be reactivated
> again.
>
> Is this what we would like to have?
>
> For this, we need an additional configuration on the conversation ...
> maybe a start to have a conversation configuration at all:
>
> <conversation name="conversationA" group="orderState" />
> <conversation name="conversationB" group="orderState" />
>
>
> Now, with a simple API (for now)
>
> ConversationManager.getInstance().interruptState("orderState");
> ConversationManager.getInstance().invalidateState(String)
> ConversationManager.getInstance().resumeState(String)
> List<String> states =
> ConversationManager.getInstance().getInterruptedStates("orderState");
>
>
> The idea is to group conversations together and then to allow to
> interrupt/resume this group of conversations.
>
> Or did I understand something wrong?
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
I am not sure if I talk about the same, but ....
In Orchestra it is all about beans. What would be nice is, if we could
define a page-flow (state A) having it's own set of beans and being able
to enter the page-flow (state B) again and having a new set of beans
then (effectively the same bean/el names but the views will see
different instances). Once state B finished state A will be reactivated
again.
Is this what we would like to have?
For this, we need an additional configuration on the conversation ...
maybe a start to have a conversation configuration at all:
<conversation name="conversationA" group="orderState" />
<conversation name="conversationB" group="orderState" />
Now, with a simple API (for now)
ConversationManager.getInstance().interruptState("orderState");
ConversationManager.getInstance().invalidateState(String)
ConversationManager.getInstance().resumeState(String)
List<String> states =
ConversationManager.getInstance().getInterruptedStates("orderState");
The idea is to group conversations together and then to allow to
interrupt/resume this group of conversations.
Or did I understand something wrong?
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
After a first quick though I like the idea.
See inline for some notes
> main faces-config.xml:
>
> <navigation-rule>
> <from-view-id>x.jsp</from-view-id>
> <navigation-case>
> <to-view-id>flow1:y.jsp</to-view-id>
> </navigation-case>
> </navigation-rule>
>
> then a flow1-config.xml with
that is nice "convention"
>
> <navigation-rule>
> <from-view-id>y.jsp</from-view-id>
> <navigation-case>
> <to-view-id>main</to-view-id>
> </navigation-case>
> </navigation-rule>
>
> would lead back to main...
does this always work ?
Is "main" a known constant for "faces-config.xml" ?
or would this mean that it is named "main-faces-config.xml"
>
> pretty similar to spring webflow, but JSF config syntax.
I totally agree that reuse of the already known/stable JSF nav-syntax
is kind of a convenience for new orchestra
customers.
-M
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On Nov 9, 2007 11:12 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 2007 11:01 AM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > but the sub-flow feature is missing... If we'd have that (eventually
> > > in native JSF-configuration style, one subflow in a different file)
> > > Orchestra would be feature complete.
> >
> > true, that would allow kind of "reusage" of *flows* as well.
> >
> > -M
> >
> >
> > >
> > > @Seam: have you seen the public early release draft of web-beans? Seam
> > > is not going to look like Seam when this is finished... outjection is
> > > gone, replaced by Spring-style proxy-handling without configuration
> > > (outjection was definitely one of the central features of Seam, this
> > > will also mean the programming model can change to something more
> > > classic...)
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 9, 2007 10:38 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > From my perspective, I'd use Orchestra because it is really
> > > > lightweight, in usage.
> > > > Configuration is done once, and easy to re-use the orchestra specific cfg.
> > > >
> > > > the nav-flow w/ Orchestra is plain JSF, that is a plus.
> > > >
> > > > -M
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 9, 2007 9:34 AM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
> > > > > > release. We should dress warmer here ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I already know that. Well, competition is always good ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I see:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) JBoss Seam, which might be very feature-full but which is also very
> > > > > intrusive to your application and requires you to use a new programming
> > > > > model.
> > > > > BTW: I think Seam should be split into various modules, for example, the
> > > > > ability to being able to have function calls with method parameters in
> > > > > Facelets would be great to be usable without seam.
> > > > > 2) Web-Beans: ditto
> > > > > 3) Spring-Webflow, which might be a little less intrusive, but requires
> > > > > you to use a configuration to describe the webflow, doesn't it?
> > > > > 4) Orchestra, which is a very thin layer and nicely integrates into your
> > > > > application, even a complex legacy one. The automatic conversation
> > > > > starting with the ability to have some in parallel makes it VERY easy to
> > > > > use.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ciao,
> > > > > Mario
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > >
> > > > further stuff:
> > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > 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/
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> 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/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
we could have
main faces-config.xml:
<navigation-rule>
<from-view-id>x.jsp</from-view-id>
<navigation-case>
<to-view-id>flow1:y.jsp</to-view-id>
</navigation-case>
</navigation-rule>
then a flow1-config.xml with
<navigation-rule>
<from-view-id>y.jsp</from-view-id>
<navigation-case>
<to-view-id>main</to-view-id>
</navigation-case>
</navigation-rule>
would lead back to main...
pretty similar to spring webflow, but JSF config syntax.
regards,
Martin
On Nov 9, 2007 11:12 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2007 11:01 AM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > but the sub-flow feature is missing... If we'd have that (eventually
> > in native JSF-configuration style, one subflow in a different file)
> > Orchestra would be feature complete.
>
> true, that would allow kind of "reusage" of *flows* as well.
>
> -M
>
>
> >
> > @Seam: have you seen the public early release draft of web-beans? Seam
> > is not going to look like Seam when this is finished... outjection is
> > gone, replaced by Spring-style proxy-handling without configuration
> > (outjection was definitely one of the central features of Seam, this
> > will also mean the programming model can change to something more
> > classic...)
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2007 10:38 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > From my perspective, I'd use Orchestra because it is really
> > > lightweight, in usage.
> > > Configuration is done once, and easy to re-use the orchestra specific cfg.
> > >
> > > the nav-flow w/ Orchestra is plain JSF, that is a plus.
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 9, 2007 9:34 AM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > > I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
> > > > > release. We should dress warmer here ;)
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, I already know that. Well, competition is always good ;-)
> > > >
> > > > I see:
> > > >
> > > > 1) JBoss Seam, which might be very feature-full but which is also very
> > > > intrusive to your application and requires you to use a new programming
> > > > model.
> > > > BTW: I think Seam should be split into various modules, for example, the
> > > > ability to being able to have function calls with method parameters in
> > > > Facelets would be great to be usable without seam.
> > > > 2) Web-Beans: ditto
> > > > 3) Spring-Webflow, which might be a little less intrusive, but requires
> > > > you to use a configuration to describe the webflow, doesn't it?
> > > > 4) Orchestra, which is a very thin layer and nicely integrates into your
> > > > application, even a complex legacy one. The automatic conversation
> > > > starting with the ability to have some in parallel makes it VERY easy to
> > > > use.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ciao,
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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/
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Nov 9, 2007 11:01 AM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> but the sub-flow feature is missing... If we'd have that (eventually
> in native JSF-configuration style, one subflow in a different file)
> Orchestra would be feature complete.
true, that would allow kind of "reusage" of *flows* as well.
-M
>
> @Seam: have you seen the public early release draft of web-beans? Seam
> is not going to look like Seam when this is finished... outjection is
> gone, replaced by Spring-style proxy-handling without configuration
> (outjection was definitely one of the central features of Seam, this
> will also mean the programming model can change to something more
> classic...)
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2007 10:38 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > From my perspective, I'd use Orchestra because it is really
> > lightweight, in usage.
> > Configuration is done once, and easy to re-use the orchestra specific cfg.
> >
> > the nav-flow w/ Orchestra is plain JSF, that is a plus.
> >
> > -M
> >
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2007 9:34 AM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > > I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
> > > > release. We should dress warmer here ;)
> > > >
> > > Yes, I already know that. Well, competition is always good ;-)
> > >
> > > I see:
> > >
> > > 1) JBoss Seam, which might be very feature-full but which is also very
> > > intrusive to your application and requires you to use a new programming
> > > model.
> > > BTW: I think Seam should be split into various modules, for example, the
> > > ability to being able to have function calls with method parameters in
> > > Facelets would be great to be usable without seam.
> > > 2) Web-Beans: ditto
> > > 3) Spring-Webflow, which might be a little less intrusive, but requires
> > > you to use a configuration to describe the webflow, doesn't it?
> > > 4) Orchestra, which is a very thin layer and nicely integrates into your
> > > application, even a complex legacy one. The automatic conversation
> > > starting with the ability to have some in parallel makes it VERY easy to
> > > use.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > > Mario
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Duong BaTien <du...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 03:24 -0700, Duong BaTien wrote:
> Hi:
> Can you give a link to early release draft of web-beans I look at the
> just released Seam-2.0.0.GA and do not see the changes you mention.
>
> Thanks
> BaTien
Yes, i got it. Thanks for pointed out.
>
> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 11:01 +0100, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > but the sub-flow feature is missing... If we'd have that (eventually
> > in native JSF-configuration style, one subflow in a different file)
> > Orchestra would be feature complete.
> >
> > @Seam: have you seen the public early release draft of web-beans? Seam
> > is not going to look like Seam when this is finished... outjection is
> > gone, replaced by Spring-style proxy-handling without configuration
> > (outjection was definitely one of the central features of Seam, this
> > will also mean the programming model can change to something more
> > classic...)
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2007 10:38 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > From my perspective, I'd use Orchestra because it is really
> > > lightweight, in usage.
> > > Configuration is done once, and easy to re-use the orchestra specific cfg.
> > >
> > > the nav-flow w/ Orchestra is plain JSF, that is a plus.
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 9, 2007 9:34 AM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > > I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
> > > > > release. We should dress warmer here ;)
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, I already know that. Well, competition is always good ;-)
> > > >
> > > > I see:
> > > >
> > > > 1) JBoss Seam, which might be very feature-full but which is also very
> > > > intrusive to your application and requires you to use a new programming
> > > > model.
> > > > BTW: I think Seam should be split into various modules, for example, the
> > > > ability to being able to have function calls with method parameters in
> > > > Facelets would be great to be usable without seam.
> > > > 2) Web-Beans: ditto
> > > > 3) Spring-Webflow, which might be a little less intrusive, but requires
> > > > you to use a configuration to describe the webflow, doesn't it?
> > > > 4) Orchestra, which is a very thin layer and nicely integrates into your
> > > > application, even a complex legacy one. The automatic conversation
> > > > starting with the ability to have some in parallel makes it VERY easy to
> > > > use.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ciao,
> > > > Mario
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Duong BaTien <du...@gmail.com>.
Hi:
Can you give a link to early release draft of web-beans I look at the
just released Seam-2.0.0.GA and do not see the changes you mention.
Thanks
BaTien
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 11:01 +0100, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> but the sub-flow feature is missing... If we'd have that (eventually
> in native JSF-configuration style, one subflow in a different file)
> Orchestra would be feature complete.
>
> @Seam: have you seen the public early release draft of web-beans? Seam
> is not going to look like Seam when this is finished... outjection is
> gone, replaced by Spring-style proxy-handling without configuration
> (outjection was definitely one of the central features of Seam, this
> will also mean the programming model can change to something more
> classic...)
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On Nov 9, 2007 10:38 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > From my perspective, I'd use Orchestra because it is really
> > lightweight, in usage.
> > Configuration is done once, and easy to re-use the orchestra specific cfg.
> >
> > the nav-flow w/ Orchestra is plain JSF, that is a plus.
> >
> > -M
> >
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2007 9:34 AM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > > I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
> > > > release. We should dress warmer here ;)
> > > >
> > > Yes, I already know that. Well, competition is always good ;-)
> > >
> > > I see:
> > >
> > > 1) JBoss Seam, which might be very feature-full but which is also very
> > > intrusive to your application and requires you to use a new programming
> > > model.
> > > BTW: I think Seam should be split into various modules, for example, the
> > > ability to being able to have function calls with method parameters in
> > > Facelets would be great to be usable without seam.
> > > 2) Web-Beans: ditto
> > > 3) Spring-Webflow, which might be a little less intrusive, but requires
> > > you to use a configuration to describe the webflow, doesn't it?
> > > 4) Orchestra, which is a very thin layer and nicely integrates into your
> > > application, even a complex legacy one. The automatic conversation
> > > starting with the ability to have some in parallel makes it VERY easy to
> > > use.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > > Mario
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>
>
>
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi guys,
but the sub-flow feature is missing... If we'd have that (eventually
in native JSF-configuration style, one subflow in a different file)
Orchestra would be feature complete.
@Seam: have you seen the public early release draft of web-beans? Seam
is not going to look like Seam when this is finished... outjection is
gone, replaced by Spring-style proxy-handling without configuration
(outjection was definitely one of the central features of Seam, this
will also mean the programming model can change to something more
classic...)
regards,
Martin
On Nov 9, 2007 10:38 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> From my perspective, I'd use Orchestra because it is really
> lightweight, in usage.
> Configuration is done once, and easy to re-use the orchestra specific cfg.
>
> the nav-flow w/ Orchestra is plain JSF, that is a plus.
>
> -M
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2007 9:34 AM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > > I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
> > > release. We should dress warmer here ;)
> > >
> > Yes, I already know that. Well, competition is always good ;-)
> >
> > I see:
> >
> > 1) JBoss Seam, which might be very feature-full but which is also very
> > intrusive to your application and requires you to use a new programming
> > model.
> > BTW: I think Seam should be split into various modules, for example, the
> > ability to being able to have function calls with method parameters in
> > Facelets would be great to be usable without seam.
> > 2) Web-Beans: ditto
> > 3) Spring-Webflow, which might be a little less intrusive, but requires
> > you to use a configuration to describe the webflow, doesn't it?
> > 4) Orchestra, which is a very thin layer and nicely integrates into your
> > application, even a complex legacy one. The automatic conversation
> > starting with the ability to have some in parallel makes it VERY easy to
> > use.
> >
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Mario
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
>From my perspective, I'd use Orchestra because it is really
lightweight, in usage.
Configuration is done once, and easy to re-use the orchestra specific cfg.
the nav-flow w/ Orchestra is plain JSF, that is a plus.
-M
On Nov 9, 2007 9:34 AM, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
> > I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
> > release. We should dress warmer here ;)
> >
> Yes, I already know that. Well, competition is always good ;-)
>
> I see:
>
> 1) JBoss Seam, which might be very feature-full but which is also very
> intrusive to your application and requires you to use a new programming
> model.
> BTW: I think Seam should be split into various modules, for example, the
> ability to being able to have function calls with method parameters in
> Facelets would be great to be usable without seam.
> 2) Web-Beans: ditto
> 3) Spring-Webflow, which might be a little less intrusive, but requires
> you to use a configuration to describe the webflow, doesn't it?
> 4) Orchestra, which is a very thin layer and nicely integrates into your
> application, even a complex legacy one. The automatic conversation
> starting with the ability to have some in parallel makes it VERY easy to
> use.
>
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Hi!
> I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
> release. We should dress warmer here ;)
>
Yes, I already know that. Well, competition is always good ;-)
I see:
1) JBoss Seam, which might be very feature-full but which is also very
intrusive to your application and requires you to use a new programming
model.
BTW: I think Seam should be split into various modules, for example, the
ability to being able to have function calls with method parameters in
Facelets would be great to be usable without seam.
2) Web-Beans: ditto
3) Spring-Webflow, which might be a little less intrusive, but requires
you to use a configuration to describe the webflow, doesn't it?
4) Orchestra, which is a very thin layer and nicely integrates into your
application, even a complex legacy one. The automatic conversation
starting with the ability to have some in parallel makes it VERY easy to
use.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [ORCHESTRA] Spring-Webflow
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Yes,
from the 2-version of it. Was already discussed here :-)
-Matthias
On Nov 9, 2007 9:16 AM, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've just heard that Spring-Webflow will add JPA-support in the next
> release. We should dress warmer here ;)
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> 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/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org