You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by "Geoff Callender (JIRA)" <de...@tapestry.apache.org> on 2008/10/03 14:22:44 UTC
[jira] Created: (TAPESTRY-2703) ApplicationStateObject is a
misleading term
ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
-------------------------------------------
Key: TAPESTRY-2703
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703
Project: Tapestry
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: tapestry-core
Affects Versions: 5.0.15
Reporter: Geoff Callender
This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Amongst those who agreed, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
To: users@tapestry.apache.org
We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
@SessionScoped
@SessionShared
@ShareAcrossSession
It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
@StateObject
with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
Geoff
The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (TAPESTRY-2703) ApplicationStateObject is a
misleading term
Posted by "Martin Strand (JIRA)" <de...@tapestry.apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12636630#action_12636630 ]
Martin Strand commented on TAPESTRY-2703:
-----------------------------------------
I think Lubor's idea to replace @Persist and @ApplicationStateObject with a single annotation makes everything very easy to understand:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65604
@Scope("session") // @ApplicationStateObject
private User user;
@Scope("page") // @Persist
private Item item;
@Scope("your-custom-strategy")
private ShoppingCart shoppingCart;
> ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAPESTRY-2703
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703
> Project: Tapestry
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: tapestry-core
> Affects Versions: 5.0.15
> Reporter: Geoff Callender
>
> This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
> Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
> From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
> Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
> Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
> To: users@tapestry.apache.org
> We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
> One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
> The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
> The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
> @SessionScoped
> @SessionShared
> @ShareAcrossSession
> It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
> Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
> @StateObject
> with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
> What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
> Geoff
> The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (TAPESTRY-2703) ApplicationStateObject is a
misleading term
Posted by "Filip S. Adamsen (JIRA)" <de...@tapestry.apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12636669#action_12636669 ]
Filip S. Adamsen commented on TAPESTRY-2703:
--------------------------------------------
Using an enum is not an option as additional persistence strategies can be contributed.
> ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAPESTRY-2703
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703
> Project: Tapestry
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: tapestry-core
> Affects Versions: 5.0.15
> Reporter: Geoff Callender
>
> This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
> Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
> From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
> Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
> Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
> To: users@tapestry.apache.org
> We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
> One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
> The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
> The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
> @SessionScoped
> @SessionShared
> @ShareAcrossSession
> It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
> Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
> @StateObject
> with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
> What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
> Geoff
> The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (TAPESTRY-2703) ApplicationStateObject is a
misleading term
Posted by "Geoff Callender (JIRA)" <de...@tapestry.apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Geoff Callender updated TAPESTRY-2703:
--------------------------------------
Description:
This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
To: users@tapestry.apache.org
We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
@SessionScoped
@SessionShared
@ShareAcrossSession
It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
@StateObject
with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
Geoff
The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
was:
This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Amongst those who agreed, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
To: users@tapestry.apache.org
We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
@SessionScoped
@SessionShared
@ShareAcrossSession
It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
@StateObject
with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
Geoff
The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
> ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAPESTRY-2703
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703
> Project: Tapestry
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: tapestry-core
> Affects Versions: 5.0.15
> Reporter: Geoff Callender
>
> This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
> Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
> From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
> Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
> Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
> To: users@tapestry.apache.org
> We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
> One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
> The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
> The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
> @SessionScoped
> @SessionShared
> @ShareAcrossSession
> It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
> Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
> @StateObject
> with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
> What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
> Geoff
> The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (TAPESTRY-2703) ApplicationStateObject is a
misleading term
Posted by "Lubor Gajda (JIRA)" <de...@tapestry.apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12636661#action_12636661 ]
Lubor Gajda commented on TAPESTRY-2703:
---------------------------------------
1. I would suggest using enumeration or constants for definition of scope types instead of plain strings (to avoid misspelling issues and to support IDE auto-completion). For instance:
@Scope(ScopeType.FLOW)
@Scope(ScopeType.CONVERSATION)
@Scope(ScopeType.SESSION)
@Scope(ScopeType.APPLICATION)
With static import this could be simplified to this form:
@Scope(FLOW)
@Scope(CONVERSATION)
@Scope(SESSION)
@Scope(APPLICATION)
2. @Scope(PAGE) as replacement for current @Persist strategy mentioned in previous Martin's comment is a bit misleading:
@Persist strategy uses by default HTTP session as storage implementation and users should be explicitly aware of that fact (life-cycle of persisted page properties is tied to life-cycle of HTTP session and to reset them they have to be manually cleaned or the session has to be destroyed). It also conflicts naming strategy of JSP API what could be confusing for new Tapestry users not 100% familiar with its internal terminology.
To avoid this confusion I would use simple:
@Scope(SESSION)
@Scope(FLASH)
@Scope(CLIENT)
However, this would mean that page properties annotated with @Scope(SESSION) would be visible from all application pages (so I'm not very sure about this one). But I think that @Scope(PAGE) should be reserved for scope type with life-cycle identical to page scope used in JSP API.
> ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAPESTRY-2703
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703
> Project: Tapestry
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: tapestry-core
> Affects Versions: 5.0.15
> Reporter: Geoff Callender
>
> This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
> Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
> From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
> Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
> Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
> To: users@tapestry.apache.org
> We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
> One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
> The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
> The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
> @SessionScoped
> @SessionShared
> @ShareAcrossSession
> It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
> Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
> @StateObject
> with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
> What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
> Geoff
> The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (TAP5-274) ApplicationStateObject is a misleading
term
Posted by "Howard M. Lewis Ship (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-274?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Howard M. Lewis Ship updated TAP5-274:
--------------------------------------
Issue Type: Improvement (was: Bug)
> ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAP5-274
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-274
> Project: Tapestry 5
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Geoff Callender
>
> This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
> Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
> From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
> Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
> Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
> To: users@tapestry.apache.org
> We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
> One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
> The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
> The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
> @SessionScoped
> @SessionShared
> @ShareAcrossSession
> It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
> Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
> @StateObject
> with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
> What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
> Geoff
> The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (TAPESTRY-2703) ApplicationStateObject is a
misleading term
Posted by "Lubor Gajda (JIRA)" <de...@tapestry.apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12636867#action_12636867 ]
Lubor Gajda commented on TAPESTRY-2703:
---------------------------------------
Java enumerations can implement interfaces. Maybe we could base scope type definition on ScopeType interface and each contribution would provide its own ScopeType enumeration implementing the interface.
> ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAPESTRY-2703
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703
> Project: Tapestry
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: tapestry-core
> Affects Versions: 5.0.15
> Reporter: Geoff Callender
>
> This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
> Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
> From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
> Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
> Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
> To: users@tapestry.apache.org
> We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
> One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
> The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
> The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
> @SessionScoped
> @SessionShared
> @ShareAcrossSession
> It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
> Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
> @StateObject
> with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
> What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
> Geoff
> The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (TAP5-274) ApplicationStateObject is a misleading
term
Posted by "Andy Blower (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-274?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12645768#action_12645768 ]
Andy Blower commented on TAP5-274:
----------------------------------
I really don't like the idea of combining the annotations like this:
@Scope("session") // @ApplicationStateObject
private User user;
@Scope("page") // @Persist
private Item item;
Page to me implies that the scope is purely for the length of time the page is being rendered. (ex struts developer here ;-)
I do however agree with Geoff that the @ApplicationState annotation is badly named and this is the last chance to rename it. I would suggest calling it @SessionState myself.
> ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAP5-274
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-274
> Project: Tapestry 5
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Geoff Callender
>
> This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
> Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
> From: geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
> Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
> Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
> To: users@tapestry.apache.org
> We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
> One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
> The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users", which is not quite right, either.
> The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
> @SessionScoped
> @SessionShared
> @ShareAcrossSession
> It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
> Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
> @StateObject
> with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
> What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
> Geoff
> The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org