You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@struts.apache.org by Gabriel Belingueres <be...@gmail.com> on 2008/03/04 14:00:42 UTC
Re: Conversation Scope?
Why model-driven? I don't fully get it.
I've done several S2 apps by now and never fell the time to use the
model driven interface before (for me this is syntax sugar.)
Now why is this important for supporting conversation scope?
Is it for not writing code like
${conversationsMap[conversationId].myproperty} in the view? it is easy
to create a tag that inject the conversation into a request-scoped
variable like this:
<s:conversation var="myconversation"/>
then use ${myconversation.myproperty}
Gabriel
2008/2/24, Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>:
> I hadn't noticed this was already part of the 2.1.x core and default stack:
>
> http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/scoped-model-driven-interceptor.html.
>
> I haven't checked the code but it reads the same
>
> Ray Clough wrote:
> > I'm definitely going to have to watch the 'ranting'. (By the way,
> > Adam, you have to stop grappling with SWF when you get married.)
> >
> > It seems to me that 'ModelDriven' is not much use without
> > ConversationScope, because you have to manually manage the
> > model/session interaction in all but the first action in the
> > conversation. What I'm talking about with the term
> > 'ConversationScope' is the need not to have to explicitly store,
> > check, and remove my model data from the session in each action.
> > Basically my action always looks like this:
> >
> > 1. check session for model.
> > 2. if found, is model for the current conversation
> > * if no delete the model from the session, create new model
> > and place in session.
> > * if yes place it into the Action's private variable
> > 3. ...... whatever the action does .......
> > 4. is the conversation finished?
> > * if no, make sure model is in session
> > * if yes, remove model from session
> >
> > This seems like a pretty straight-forward use case for an
> > interceptor. I'm thinking of a small object called
> > "ConversationScope", which, of course, has to be stored in the
> > session. The ConversationScope obj contains a map and a method to
> > return its ConversationId, and methods to add and remove objects from
> > its map. The interceptor could do to the ConversationScope the
> > actions which the Action currently does, as delineated above. It
> > might be nice to inject the ConversationScope into the action, but I
> > don't personally know injection well enough to do that. A full
> > solution with injection should have a "ConversationAware" interface
> > which includes a "ConversationId" attribute. It might be better to
> > use annotations rather than an interface declaration.
> >
> > I'm just thinking on paper here, but it doesn't seem like any massive
> > over-architecting is needed. I personally have almost no experience
> > with Spring, and every time I touch it everything breaks. Guice
> > sounds like a nicer solution, but there is not much tutorial info on it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - rc
> >
> >
> > Adam Hardy wrote:
> >> Is it worth building a mechanism for conversation scope, compared to
> >> the complexity it introduces? I really dislike Spring Webflow with
> >> its conversation scope, stringent encapsulation and storage of
> >> massive amounts of data in various maps that locks away everything
> >> out of sight and makes it all taste like it's been massively
> >> over-architected (and of course the practically insurmountable
> >> learning curve)
> >>
> >> Isn't it just easier to clean your variables out of the session
> >> manually when done? I'm not trying to provoke another rant, it's just
> >> that I've suffered my fair share of pain grappling with SWF and I
> >> find all justifications of its complexity unwarranted.
> >>
> >> Adam
> >>
> >> Ray Clough on 24/02/08 02:23, wrote:
> >>> Thanks Jeromy. (usually my wife is the only one who notices my
> >>> 'rants').
> >>>
> >>> Jeromy Evans wrote:
> >>>> Hi Ray,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not sure, but check out Tom's new scope plugin as it may get
> >>>> you part of the way there.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/S2PLUGINS/scope-plugin.html
> >>>>
> >>>> I was just reading one of your rants from August 07 that mentioned
> >>>> the need to use ModelDriven's model across a conversation and think
> >>>> this will be useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers,
> >>>> Jeromy Evans
> >>>>
> >>>> Ray Clough wrote:
> >>>>> JSF has a "ConversationScope" for extended series of
> >>>>> requests/responses
> >>>>> dealing with the same topic, and usually the same data model. I'm
> >>>>> thinking
> >>>>> of writing an interceptor to simulate ConversationScope, and I'm
> >>>>> wondering
> >>>>> if this has not already been done, and if so, does anyone have
> >>>>> details,
> >>>>> code, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Conversation Scope?
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
AFAIK the model is pushed onto the stack *in addition* to the action.
I don't know of anywhere in the docs where it states that the action would be
unavailable.
Dave
--- Roberto Nunnari <ro...@supsi.ch> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> About the ModelDriven interface.. I believe I'd read somewhere
> that when you implement it, your view looses access to the action..
>
> ..but using it I found out that if the method/property is not
> found in the model, then at some point the action is searched
> for it.. so with that in mind, you can access multiple objects
> from your view.
>
> But now I doubt that if the doc somewhere says that the action
> will not be accessible when implementing the ModelDriven interface,
> someday updating my webapp to a newer version of S2 I'd meet
> a bad surprise..
>
> any thoughts here?
>
> Robi
>
>
> Gabriel Belingueres wrote:
> > Well at this point I'm not proposing nothing in particular, just
> > trying to understand the rationale behind this relation between
> > conversation scope and model driven, which is not clear to me why it
> > is designed this way.
> >
> > I thought that a possible explanation would be to keep the view (JSP)
> > pages unaware of the scope of the variables it uses but honesty I'm
> > not fully convinced of the gain I can achieve with this practice.
> >
> > I've developed a conversation scope interceptor I'm using in my
> > projects and I don't use modelDriven interface.
> >
> > ModelDriven interface is (IMHO) uncomfortable because it is designed
> > to return only one object for use in the view, which IMO is
> > unrealistic but in the simplest use cases. In addition, if you want to
> > use several objects in the view, it forces to either create a DTO (not
> > good) to reunite all data or using a Map with domain objects but in
> > either case you end up with something not very different to not using
> > model-driven.
> >
> > 2008/3/4, Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com>:
> >> Hi Gabriel-
> >>
> >> are your proposing an enhancement to s:head as i think this concept is
> >> already covered by s:head which sets up global attributes?
> >> http://struts.apache.org/2.0.6/docs/head.html
> >>
> >> or a separate "s:conversation" tag ?
> >>
> >> M-
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Gabriel Belingueres" <be...@gmail.com>
> >> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <us...@struts.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:00 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Conversation Scope?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Why model-driven? I don't fully get it.
> >>> I've done several S2 apps by now and never fell the time to use the
> >>> model driven interface before (for me this is syntax sugar.)
> >>>
> >>> Now why is this important for supporting conversation scope?
> >>> Is it for not writing code like
> >>> ${conversationsMap[conversationId].myproperty} in the view? it is easy
> >>> to create a tag that inject the conversation into a request-scoped
> >>> variable like this:
> >>> <s:conversation var="myconversation"/>
> >>>
> >>> then use ${myconversation.myproperty}
> >>>
> >>> Gabriel
> >>>
> >>> 2008/2/24, Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>:
> >>>> I hadn't noticed this was already part of the 2.1.x core and default
> >> stack:
> >>>>
> http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/scoped-model-driven-interceptor.html.
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven't checked the code but it reads the same
> >>>>
> >>>> Ray Clough wrote:
> >>>>> I'm definitely going to have to watch the 'ranting'. (By the way,
> >>>>> Adam, you have to stop grappling with SWF when you get married.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems to me that 'ModelDriven' is not much use without
> >>>>> ConversationScope, because you have to manually manage the
> >>>>> model/session interaction in all but the first action in the
> >>>>> conversation. What I'm talking about with the term
> >>>>> 'ConversationScope' is the need not to have to explicitly store,
> >>>>> check, and remove my model data from the session in each action.
> >>>>> Basically my action always looks like this:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. check session for model.
> >>>>> 2. if found, is model for the current conversation
> >>>>> * if no delete the model from the session, create new model
> >>>>> and place in session.
> >>>>> * if yes place it into the Action's private variable
> >>>>> 3. ...... whatever the action does .......
> >>>>> 4. is the conversation finished?
> >>>>> * if no, make sure model is in session
> >>>>> * if yes, remove model from session
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This seems like a pretty straight-forward use case for an
> >>>>> interceptor. I'm thinking of a small object called
> >>>>> "ConversationScope", which, of course, has to be stored in the
> >>>>> session. The ConversationScope obj contains a map and a method to
> >>>>> return its ConversationId, and methods to add and remove objects from
> >>>>> its map. The interceptor could do to the ConversationScope the
> >>>>> actions which the Action currently does, as delineated above. It
> >>>>> might be nice to inject the ConversationScope into the action, but I
> >>>>> don't personally know injection well enough to do that. A full
> >>>>> solution with injection should have a "ConversationAware" interface
> >>>>> which includes a "ConversationId" attribute. It might be better to
> >>>>> use annotations rather than an interface declaration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm just thinking on paper here, but it doesn't seem like any massive
> >>>>> over-architecting is needed. I personally have almost no experience
> >>>>> with Spring, and every time I touch it everything breaks. Guice
> >>>>> sounds like a nicer solution, but there is not much tutorial info on
> >> it.
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> - rc
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Adam Hardy wrote:
> >>>>>> Is it worth building a mechanism for conversation scope, compared to
> >>>>>> the complexity it introduces? I really dislike Spring Webflow with
> >>>>>> its conversation scope, stringent encapsulation and storage of
> >>>>>> massive amounts of data in various maps that locks away everything
> >>>>>> out of sight and makes it all taste like it's been massively
> >>>>>> over-architected (and of course the practically insurmountable
> >>>>>> learning curve)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Isn't it just easier to clean your variables out of the session
> >>>>>> manually when done? I'm not trying to provoke another rant, it's
> just
> >>>>>> that I've suffered my fair share of pain grappling with SWF and I
> >>>>>> find all justifications of its complexity unwarranted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Adam
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ray Clough on 24/02/08 02:23, wrote:
> >>>>>>> Thanks Jeromy. (usually my wife is the only one who notices my
> >>>>>>> 'rants').
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jeromy Evans wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Ray,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure, but check out Tom's new scope plugin as it may get
> >>>>>>>> you part of the way there.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/S2PLUGINS/scope-plugin.html
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I was just reading one of your rants from August 07 that mentioned
> >>>>>>>> the need to use ModelDriven's model across a conversation and
> think
> >>>>>>>> this will be useful.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> cheers,
> >>>>>>>> Jeromy Evans
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ray Clough wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> JSF has a "ConversationScope" for extended series of
> >>>>>>>>> requests/responses
> >>>>>>>>> dealing with the same topic, and usually the same data model.
> I'm
> >>>>>>>>> thinking
> >>>>>>>>> of writing an interceptor to simulate ConversationScope, and I'm
> >>>>>>>>> wondering
> >>>>>>>>> if this has not already been done, and if so, does anyone have
> >>>>>>>>> details,
> >>>>>>>>> code, etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>
=== message truncated ===
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Conversation Scope?
Posted by Roberto Nunnari <ro...@supsi.ch>.
Hi.
About the ModelDriven interface.. I believe I'd read somewhere
that when you implement it, your view looses access to the action..
..but using it I found out that if the method/property is not
found in the model, then at some point the action is searched
for it.. so with that in mind, you can access multiple objects
from your view.
But now I doubt that if the doc somewhere says that the action
will not be accessible when implementing the ModelDriven interface,
someday updating my webapp to a newer version of S2 I'd meet
a bad surprise..
any thoughts here?
Robi
Gabriel Belingueres wrote:
> Well at this point I'm not proposing nothing in particular, just
> trying to understand the rationale behind this relation between
> conversation scope and model driven, which is not clear to me why it
> is designed this way.
>
> I thought that a possible explanation would be to keep the view (JSP)
> pages unaware of the scope of the variables it uses but honesty I'm
> not fully convinced of the gain I can achieve with this practice.
>
> I've developed a conversation scope interceptor I'm using in my
> projects and I don't use modelDriven interface.
>
> ModelDriven interface is (IMHO) uncomfortable because it is designed
> to return only one object for use in the view, which IMO is
> unrealistic but in the simplest use cases. In addition, if you want to
> use several objects in the view, it forces to either create a DTO (not
> good) to reunite all data or using a Map with domain objects but in
> either case you end up with something not very different to not using
> model-driven.
>
> 2008/3/4, Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com>:
>> Hi Gabriel-
>>
>> are your proposing an enhancement to s:head as i think this concept is
>> already covered by s:head which sets up global attributes?
>> http://struts.apache.org/2.0.6/docs/head.html
>>
>> or a separate "s:conversation" tag ?
>>
>> M-
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gabriel Belingueres" <be...@gmail.com>
>> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <us...@struts.apache.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: Conversation Scope?
>>
>>
>>> Why model-driven? I don't fully get it.
>>> I've done several S2 apps by now and never fell the time to use the
>>> model driven interface before (for me this is syntax sugar.)
>>>
>>> Now why is this important for supporting conversation scope?
>>> Is it for not writing code like
>>> ${conversationsMap[conversationId].myproperty} in the view? it is easy
>>> to create a tag that inject the conversation into a request-scoped
>>> variable like this:
>>> <s:conversation var="myconversation"/>
>>>
>>> then use ${myconversation.myproperty}
>>>
>>> Gabriel
>>>
>>> 2008/2/24, Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>:
>>>> I hadn't noticed this was already part of the 2.1.x core and default
>> stack:
>>>> http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/scoped-model-driven-interceptor.html.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't checked the code but it reads the same
>>>>
>>>> Ray Clough wrote:
>>>>> I'm definitely going to have to watch the 'ranting'. (By the way,
>>>>> Adam, you have to stop grappling with SWF when you get married.)
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that 'ModelDriven' is not much use without
>>>>> ConversationScope, because you have to manually manage the
>>>>> model/session interaction in all but the first action in the
>>>>> conversation. What I'm talking about with the term
>>>>> 'ConversationScope' is the need not to have to explicitly store,
>>>>> check, and remove my model data from the session in each action.
>>>>> Basically my action always looks like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. check session for model.
>>>>> 2. if found, is model for the current conversation
>>>>> * if no delete the model from the session, create new model
>>>>> and place in session.
>>>>> * if yes place it into the Action's private variable
>>>>> 3. ...... whatever the action does .......
>>>>> 4. is the conversation finished?
>>>>> * if no, make sure model is in session
>>>>> * if yes, remove model from session
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems like a pretty straight-forward use case for an
>>>>> interceptor. I'm thinking of a small object called
>>>>> "ConversationScope", which, of course, has to be stored in the
>>>>> session. The ConversationScope obj contains a map and a method to
>>>>> return its ConversationId, and methods to add and remove objects from
>>>>> its map. The interceptor could do to the ConversationScope the
>>>>> actions which the Action currently does, as delineated above. It
>>>>> might be nice to inject the ConversationScope into the action, but I
>>>>> don't personally know injection well enough to do that. A full
>>>>> solution with injection should have a "ConversationAware" interface
>>>>> which includes a "ConversationId" attribute. It might be better to
>>>>> use annotations rather than an interface declaration.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just thinking on paper here, but it doesn't seem like any massive
>>>>> over-architecting is needed. I personally have almost no experience
>>>>> with Spring, and every time I touch it everything breaks. Guice
>>>>> sounds like a nicer solution, but there is not much tutorial info on
>> it.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> - rc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam Hardy wrote:
>>>>>> Is it worth building a mechanism for conversation scope, compared to
>>>>>> the complexity it introduces? I really dislike Spring Webflow with
>>>>>> its conversation scope, stringent encapsulation and storage of
>>>>>> massive amounts of data in various maps that locks away everything
>>>>>> out of sight and makes it all taste like it's been massively
>>>>>> over-architected (and of course the practically insurmountable
>>>>>> learning curve)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it just easier to clean your variables out of the session
>>>>>> manually when done? I'm not trying to provoke another rant, it's just
>>>>>> that I've suffered my fair share of pain grappling with SWF and I
>>>>>> find all justifications of its complexity unwarranted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray Clough on 24/02/08 02:23, wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Jeromy. (usually my wife is the only one who notices my
>>>>>>> 'rants').
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeromy Evans wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Ray,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure, but check out Tom's new scope plugin as it may get
>>>>>>>> you part of the way there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/S2PLUGINS/scope-plugin.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was just reading one of your rants from August 07 that mentioned
>>>>>>>> the need to use ModelDriven's model across a conversation and think
>>>>>>>> this will be useful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>>>> Jeromy Evans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ray Clough wrote:
>>>>>>>>> JSF has a "ConversationScope" for extended series of
>>>>>>>>> requests/responses
>>>>>>>>> dealing with the same topic, and usually the same data model. I'm
>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>> of writing an interceptor to simulate ConversationScope, and I'm
>>>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>>>>> if this has not already been done, and if so, does anyone have
>>>>>>>>> details,
>>>>>>>>> code, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Conversation Scope?
Posted by Othon Reyes Sanchez <ot...@gmail.com>.
Jeromy Evans wrote:
*You're correct. ModelDriven does not give you much benefit other than
to put a single Model object, rather than the Action, at the top of the
ValueStack (the Action falls to second). In many respects, that's a
limitation rather than a benefit.*
It depends how the architecture of your app is designed. If you can try to
read "Pojo in Action" it's great book, and i'm not selling it :P, but
basically the author talks about two commons aproach:
1 using a facade to separete presentation tier from buissines tier and
2. the use of "exposed domain" aproach.
If your application use "exposed domain" aproach you can get a lot of
benefits and less boring code using the ModelDriven interface.
I have made a pair of S2 application and ModelDriven interface has been
really useful for me.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Jeromy Evans <
jeromy.evans@blueskyminds.com.au> wrote:
> Gabriel Belingueres wrote:
> > I thought that a possible explanation would be to keep the view (JSP)
> > pages unaware of the scope of the variables it uses but honesty I'm
> > not fully convinced of the gain I can achieve with this practice.
> >
> > I've developed a conversation scope interceptor I'm using in my
> > projects and I don't use modelDriven interface.
> >
> > ModelDriven interface is (IMHO) uncomfortable because it is designed
> > to return only one object for use in the view, which IMO is
> > unrealistic but in the simplest use cases. In addition, if you want to
> > use several objects in the view, it forces to either create a DTO (not
> > good) to reunite all data or using a Map with domain objects but in
> > either case you end up with something not very different to not using
> > model-driven.
> >
>
> Hi Gabriel,
>
> You're correct. ModelDriven does not give you much benefit other than
> to put a single Model object, rather than the Action, at the top of the
> ValueStack (the Action falls to second). In many respects, that's a
> limitation rather than a benefit.
>
> It's an alternative approach that suits some circumstances. Some people
> like the strict distinction between the action and the object being
> acted upon.
>
> Personally, I don't favour ModelDriven on normal actions that are used
> to populate a view. Like you stated earlier in the thread, I prefer
> using %{contact.firstName} rather than %{firstName} and often have
> multiple beans that need to be accessed. However, I have found it
> useful with the REST plugin as I typical deal with a single resource
> type (the Model) and take care that it can be serialized into XML or
> JSON as well as populate a view. Again that's mainly about demarcation
> between the action and model and of no significant technical merit.
>
> regards,
> Jeromy Evans
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: Conversation Scope?
Posted by Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>.
Gabriel Belingueres wrote:
> I thought that a possible explanation would be to keep the view (JSP)
> pages unaware of the scope of the variables it uses but honesty I'm
> not fully convinced of the gain I can achieve with this practice.
>
> I've developed a conversation scope interceptor I'm using in my
> projects and I don't use modelDriven interface.
>
> ModelDriven interface is (IMHO) uncomfortable because it is designed
> to return only one object for use in the view, which IMO is
> unrealistic but in the simplest use cases. In addition, if you want to
> use several objects in the view, it forces to either create a DTO (not
> good) to reunite all data or using a Map with domain objects but in
> either case you end up with something not very different to not using
> model-driven.
>
Hi Gabriel,
You're correct. ModelDriven does not give you much benefit other than
to put a single Model object, rather than the Action, at the top of the
ValueStack (the Action falls to second). In many respects, that's a
limitation rather than a benefit.
It's an alternative approach that suits some circumstances. Some people
like the strict distinction between the action and the object being
acted upon.
Personally, I don't favour ModelDriven on normal actions that are used
to populate a view. Like you stated earlier in the thread, I prefer
using %{contact.firstName} rather than %{firstName} and often have
multiple beans that need to be accessed. However, I have found it
useful with the REST plugin as I typical deal with a single resource
type (the Model) and take care that it can be serialized into XML or
JSON as well as populate a view. Again that's mainly about demarcation
between the action and model and of no significant technical merit.
regards,
Jeromy Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Conversation Scope?
Posted by Roberto Nunnari <ro...@supsi.ch>.
Yes.. that's probably where my confusion/misunderstanding came from.
Thank you both and best regards.
--
Robi
Dave Newton wrote:
> --- Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> looking at the doc for ModelDriven
>>
> http://www.opensymphony.com/xwork/api/com/opensymphony/xwork/ModelDriven.htm
>> l
>> we see the method
>> Object getModel()
>> Returns:
>> the model to be pushed onto the ValueStack instead of the Action itself
>
> It also says
>
> "ModelDriven Actions provide a model object to be pushed onto the ValueStack
> in addition to the Action itself, allowing a FormBean type approach like
> Struts."
>
> Dave
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Conversation Scope?
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
--- Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> looking at the doc for ModelDriven
>
http://www.opensymphony.com/xwork/api/com/opensymphony/xwork/ModelDriven.htm
> l
> we see the method
> Object getModel()
> Returns:
> the model to be pushed onto the ValueStack instead of the Action itself
It also says
"ModelDriven Actions provide a model object to be pushed onto the ValueStack
in addition to the Action itself, allowing a FormBean type approach like
Struts."
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Conversation Scope?
Posted by Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com>.
looking at the doc for ModelDriven
http://www.opensymphony.com/xwork/api/com/opensymphony/xwork/ModelDriven.htm
l
we see the method
Object getModel()
Returns:
the model to be pushed onto the ValueStack instead of the Action itself
we can now use OGNL to access the model object -without worries about
transfer via dTO and or unsynched map merges
http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/ognl-basics.html
When it makes sense to scan for company proprietary code can you publish
your conversation interceptor?
Make Sense?
M--
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabriel Belingueres" <be...@gmail.com>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <us...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Conversation Scope?
> Well at this point I'm not proposing nothing in particular, just
> trying to understand the rationale behind this relation between
> conversation scope and model driven, which is not clear to me why it
> is designed this way.
>
> I thought that a possible explanation would be to keep the view (JSP)
> pages unaware of the scope of the variables it uses but honesty I'm
> not fully convinced of the gain I can achieve with this practice.
>
> I've developed a conversation scope interceptor I'm using in my
> projects and I don't use modelDriven interface.
>
> ModelDriven interface is (IMHO) uncomfortable because it is designed
> to return only one object for use in the view, which IMO is
> unrealistic but in the simplest use cases. In addition, if you want to
> use several objects in the view, it forces to either create a DTO (not
> good) to reunite all data or using a Map with domain objects but in
> either case you end up with something not very different to not using
> model-driven.
>
> 2008/3/4, Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com>:
> > Hi Gabriel-
> >
> > are your proposing an enhancement to s:head as i think this concept is
> > already covered by s:head which sets up global attributes?
> > http://struts.apache.org/2.0.6/docs/head.html
> >
> > or a separate "s:conversation" tag ?
> >
> > M-
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gabriel Belingueres" <be...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <us...@struts.apache.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: Conversation Scope?
> >
> >
> > > Why model-driven? I don't fully get it.
> > > I've done several S2 apps by now and never fell the time to use the
> > > model driven interface before (for me this is syntax sugar.)
> > >
> > > Now why is this important for supporting conversation scope?
> > > Is it for not writing code like
> > > ${conversationsMap[conversationId].myproperty} in the view? it is easy
> > > to create a tag that inject the conversation into a request-scoped
> > > variable like this:
> > > <s:conversation var="myconversation"/>
> > >
> > > then use ${myconversation.myproperty}
> > >
> > > Gabriel
> > >
> > > 2008/2/24, Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>:
> > > > I hadn't noticed this was already part of the 2.1.x core and default
> > stack:
> > > >
> > > >
http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/scoped-model-driven-interceptor.html.
> > > >
> > > > I haven't checked the code but it reads the same
> > > >
> > > > Ray Clough wrote:
> > > > > I'm definitely going to have to watch the 'ranting'. (By the
way,
> > > > > Adam, you have to stop grappling with SWF when you get married.)
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me that 'ModelDriven' is not much use without
> > > > > ConversationScope, because you have to manually manage the
> > > > > model/session interaction in all but the first action in the
> > > > > conversation. What I'm talking about with the term
> > > > > 'ConversationScope' is the need not to have to explicitly store,
> > > > > check, and remove my model data from the session in each action.
> > > > > Basically my action always looks like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. check session for model.
> > > > > 2. if found, is model for the current conversation
> > > > > * if no delete the model from the session, create new
model
> > > > > and place in session.
> > > > > * if yes place it into the Action's private variable
> > > > > 3. ...... whatever the action does .......
> > > > > 4. is the conversation finished?
> > > > > * if no, make sure model is in session
> > > > > * if yes, remove model from session
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems like a pretty straight-forward use case for an
> > > > > interceptor. I'm thinking of a small object called
> > > > > "ConversationScope", which, of course, has to be stored in the
> > > > > session. The ConversationScope obj contains a map and a method to
> > > > > return its ConversationId, and methods to add and remove objects
from
> > > > > its map. The interceptor could do to the ConversationScope the
> > > > > actions which the Action currently does, as delineated above. It
> > > > > might be nice to inject the ConversationScope into the action, but
I
> > > > > don't personally know injection well enough to do that. A full
> > > > > solution with injection should have a "ConversationAware"
interface
> > > > > which includes a "ConversationId" attribute. It might be better
to
> > > > > use annotations rather than an interface declaration.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm just thinking on paper here, but it doesn't seem like any
massive
> > > > > over-architecting is needed. I personally have almost no
experience
> > > > > with Spring, and every time I touch it everything breaks. Guice
> > > > > sounds like a nicer solution, but there is not much tutorial info
on
> > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > - rc
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Adam Hardy wrote:
> > > > >> Is it worth building a mechanism for conversation scope, compared
to
> > > > >> the complexity it introduces? I really dislike Spring Webflow
with
> > > > >> its conversation scope, stringent encapsulation and storage of
> > > > >> massive amounts of data in various maps that locks away
everything
> > > > >> out of sight and makes it all taste like it's been massively
> > > > >> over-architected (and of course the practically insurmountable
> > > > >> learning curve)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Isn't it just easier to clean your variables out of the session
> > > > >> manually when done? I'm not trying to provoke another rant, it's
just
> > > > >> that I've suffered my fair share of pain grappling with SWF and I
> > > > >> find all justifications of its complexity unwarranted.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Adam
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ray Clough on 24/02/08 02:23, wrote:
> > > > >>> Thanks Jeromy. (usually my wife is the only one who notices my
> > > > >>> 'rants').
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Jeromy Evans wrote:
> > > > >>>> Hi Ray,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I'm not sure, but check out Tom's new scope plugin as it may
get
> > > > >>>> you part of the way there.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/S2PLUGINS/scope-plugin.html
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I was just reading one of your rants from August 07 that
mentioned
> > > > >>>> the need to use ModelDriven's model across a conversation and
think
> > > > >>>> this will be useful.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> cheers,
> > > > >>>> Jeromy Evans
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Ray Clough wrote:
> > > > >>>>> JSF has a "ConversationScope" for extended series of
> > > > >>>>> requests/responses
> > > > >>>>> dealing with the same topic, and usually the same data model.
I'm
> > > > >>>>> thinking
> > > > >>>>> of writing an interceptor to simulate ConversationScope, and
I'm
> > > > >>>>> wondering
> > > > >>>>> if this has not already been done, and if so, does anyone have
> > > > >>>>> details,
> > > > >>>>> code, etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Conversation Scope?
Posted by Gabriel Belingueres <be...@gmail.com>.
Well at this point I'm not proposing nothing in particular, just
trying to understand the rationale behind this relation between
conversation scope and model driven, which is not clear to me why it
is designed this way.
I thought that a possible explanation would be to keep the view (JSP)
pages unaware of the scope of the variables it uses but honesty I'm
not fully convinced of the gain I can achieve with this practice.
I've developed a conversation scope interceptor I'm using in my
projects and I don't use modelDriven interface.
ModelDriven interface is (IMHO) uncomfortable because it is designed
to return only one object for use in the view, which IMO is
unrealistic but in the simplest use cases. In addition, if you want to
use several objects in the view, it forces to either create a DTO (not
good) to reunite all data or using a Map with domain objects but in
either case you end up with something not very different to not using
model-driven.
2008/3/4, Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi Gabriel-
>
> are your proposing an enhancement to s:head as i think this concept is
> already covered by s:head which sets up global attributes?
> http://struts.apache.org/2.0.6/docs/head.html
>
> or a separate "s:conversation" tag ?
>
> M-
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gabriel Belingueres" <be...@gmail.com>
> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <us...@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Conversation Scope?
>
>
> > Why model-driven? I don't fully get it.
> > I've done several S2 apps by now and never fell the time to use the
> > model driven interface before (for me this is syntax sugar.)
> >
> > Now why is this important for supporting conversation scope?
> > Is it for not writing code like
> > ${conversationsMap[conversationId].myproperty} in the view? it is easy
> > to create a tag that inject the conversation into a request-scoped
> > variable like this:
> > <s:conversation var="myconversation"/>
> >
> > then use ${myconversation.myproperty}
> >
> > Gabriel
> >
> > 2008/2/24, Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>:
> > > I hadn't noticed this was already part of the 2.1.x core and default
> stack:
> > >
> > > http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/scoped-model-driven-interceptor.html.
> > >
> > > I haven't checked the code but it reads the same
> > >
> > > Ray Clough wrote:
> > > > I'm definitely going to have to watch the 'ranting'. (By the way,
> > > > Adam, you have to stop grappling with SWF when you get married.)
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that 'ModelDriven' is not much use without
> > > > ConversationScope, because you have to manually manage the
> > > > model/session interaction in all but the first action in the
> > > > conversation. What I'm talking about with the term
> > > > 'ConversationScope' is the need not to have to explicitly store,
> > > > check, and remove my model data from the session in each action.
> > > > Basically my action always looks like this:
> > > >
> > > > 1. check session for model.
> > > > 2. if found, is model for the current conversation
> > > > * if no delete the model from the session, create new model
> > > > and place in session.
> > > > * if yes place it into the Action's private variable
> > > > 3. ...... whatever the action does .......
> > > > 4. is the conversation finished?
> > > > * if no, make sure model is in session
> > > > * if yes, remove model from session
> > > >
> > > > This seems like a pretty straight-forward use case for an
> > > > interceptor. I'm thinking of a small object called
> > > > "ConversationScope", which, of course, has to be stored in the
> > > > session. The ConversationScope obj contains a map and a method to
> > > > return its ConversationId, and methods to add and remove objects from
> > > > its map. The interceptor could do to the ConversationScope the
> > > > actions which the Action currently does, as delineated above. It
> > > > might be nice to inject the ConversationScope into the action, but I
> > > > don't personally know injection well enough to do that. A full
> > > > solution with injection should have a "ConversationAware" interface
> > > > which includes a "ConversationId" attribute. It might be better to
> > > > use annotations rather than an interface declaration.
> > > >
> > > > I'm just thinking on paper here, but it doesn't seem like any massive
> > > > over-architecting is needed. I personally have almost no experience
> > > > with Spring, and every time I touch it everything breaks. Guice
> > > > sounds like a nicer solution, but there is not much tutorial info on
> it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > - rc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Adam Hardy wrote:
> > > >> Is it worth building a mechanism for conversation scope, compared to
> > > >> the complexity it introduces? I really dislike Spring Webflow with
> > > >> its conversation scope, stringent encapsulation and storage of
> > > >> massive amounts of data in various maps that locks away everything
> > > >> out of sight and makes it all taste like it's been massively
> > > >> over-architected (and of course the practically insurmountable
> > > >> learning curve)
> > > >>
> > > >> Isn't it just easier to clean your variables out of the session
> > > >> manually when done? I'm not trying to provoke another rant, it's just
> > > >> that I've suffered my fair share of pain grappling with SWF and I
> > > >> find all justifications of its complexity unwarranted.
> > > >>
> > > >> Adam
> > > >>
> > > >> Ray Clough on 24/02/08 02:23, wrote:
> > > >>> Thanks Jeromy. (usually my wife is the only one who notices my
> > > >>> 'rants').
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jeromy Evans wrote:
> > > >>>> Hi Ray,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm not sure, but check out Tom's new scope plugin as it may get
> > > >>>> you part of the way there.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/S2PLUGINS/scope-plugin.html
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I was just reading one of your rants from August 07 that mentioned
> > > >>>> the need to use ModelDriven's model across a conversation and think
> > > >>>> this will be useful.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> cheers,
> > > >>>> Jeromy Evans
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Ray Clough wrote:
> > > >>>>> JSF has a "ConversationScope" for extended series of
> > > >>>>> requests/responses
> > > >>>>> dealing with the same topic, and usually the same data model. I'm
> > > >>>>> thinking
> > > >>>>> of writing an interceptor to simulate ConversationScope, and I'm
> > > >>>>> wondering
> > > >>>>> if this has not already been done, and if so, does anyone have
> > > >>>>> details,
> > > >>>>> code, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Conversation Scope?
Posted by Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Gabriel-
are your proposing an enhancement to s:head as i think this concept is
already covered by s:head which sets up global attributes?
http://struts.apache.org/2.0.6/docs/head.html
or a separate "s:conversation" tag ?
M-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabriel Belingueres" <be...@gmail.com>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <us...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Conversation Scope?
> Why model-driven? I don't fully get it.
> I've done several S2 apps by now and never fell the time to use the
> model driven interface before (for me this is syntax sugar.)
>
> Now why is this important for supporting conversation scope?
> Is it for not writing code like
> ${conversationsMap[conversationId].myproperty} in the view? it is easy
> to create a tag that inject the conversation into a request-scoped
> variable like this:
> <s:conversation var="myconversation"/>
>
> then use ${myconversation.myproperty}
>
> Gabriel
>
> 2008/2/24, Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>:
> > I hadn't noticed this was already part of the 2.1.x core and default
stack:
> >
> > http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/scoped-model-driven-interceptor.html.
> >
> > I haven't checked the code but it reads the same
> >
> > Ray Clough wrote:
> > > I'm definitely going to have to watch the 'ranting'. (By the way,
> > > Adam, you have to stop grappling with SWF when you get married.)
> > >
> > > It seems to me that 'ModelDriven' is not much use without
> > > ConversationScope, because you have to manually manage the
> > > model/session interaction in all but the first action in the
> > > conversation. What I'm talking about with the term
> > > 'ConversationScope' is the need not to have to explicitly store,
> > > check, and remove my model data from the session in each action.
> > > Basically my action always looks like this:
> > >
> > > 1. check session for model.
> > > 2. if found, is model for the current conversation
> > > * if no delete the model from the session, create new model
> > > and place in session.
> > > * if yes place it into the Action's private variable
> > > 3. ...... whatever the action does .......
> > > 4. is the conversation finished?
> > > * if no, make sure model is in session
> > > * if yes, remove model from session
> > >
> > > This seems like a pretty straight-forward use case for an
> > > interceptor. I'm thinking of a small object called
> > > "ConversationScope", which, of course, has to be stored in the
> > > session. The ConversationScope obj contains a map and a method to
> > > return its ConversationId, and methods to add and remove objects from
> > > its map. The interceptor could do to the ConversationScope the
> > > actions which the Action currently does, as delineated above. It
> > > might be nice to inject the ConversationScope into the action, but I
> > > don't personally know injection well enough to do that. A full
> > > solution with injection should have a "ConversationAware" interface
> > > which includes a "ConversationId" attribute. It might be better to
> > > use annotations rather than an interface declaration.
> > >
> > > I'm just thinking on paper here, but it doesn't seem like any massive
> > > over-architecting is needed. I personally have almost no experience
> > > with Spring, and every time I touch it everything breaks. Guice
> > > sounds like a nicer solution, but there is not much tutorial info on
it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > - rc
> > >
> > >
> > > Adam Hardy wrote:
> > >> Is it worth building a mechanism for conversation scope, compared to
> > >> the complexity it introduces? I really dislike Spring Webflow with
> > >> its conversation scope, stringent encapsulation and storage of
> > >> massive amounts of data in various maps that locks away everything
> > >> out of sight and makes it all taste like it's been massively
> > >> over-architected (and of course the practically insurmountable
> > >> learning curve)
> > >>
> > >> Isn't it just easier to clean your variables out of the session
> > >> manually when done? I'm not trying to provoke another rant, it's just
> > >> that I've suffered my fair share of pain grappling with SWF and I
> > >> find all justifications of its complexity unwarranted.
> > >>
> > >> Adam
> > >>
> > >> Ray Clough on 24/02/08 02:23, wrote:
> > >>> Thanks Jeromy. (usually my wife is the only one who notices my
> > >>> 'rants').
> > >>>
> > >>> Jeromy Evans wrote:
> > >>>> Hi Ray,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm not sure, but check out Tom's new scope plugin as it may get
> > >>>> you part of the way there.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/S2PLUGINS/scope-plugin.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I was just reading one of your rants from August 07 that mentioned
> > >>>> the need to use ModelDriven's model across a conversation and think
> > >>>> this will be useful.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> cheers,
> > >>>> Jeromy Evans
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ray Clough wrote:
> > >>>>> JSF has a "ConversationScope" for extended series of
> > >>>>> requests/responses
> > >>>>> dealing with the same topic, and usually the same data model. I'm
> > >>>>> thinking
> > >>>>> of writing an interceptor to simulate ConversationScope, and I'm
> > >>>>> wondering
> > >>>>> if this has not already been done, and if so, does anyone have
> > >>>>> details,
> > >>>>> code, etc.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org