That's actually the code I was looking at before I started this thread. This led me to think, if I need it then I'm pretty sure that other framework developers would need it as well, my needs being pretty straightforward.
Regards, Alan On Apr 3, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Pete Muir wrote: > If you are happy to be tied to a specific CDI implementation, you could use > the Weld "bound conversations" - > http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/1.1.5.Final/en-US/html/contexts.html#d0e5506 > - which can be backed by two maps, one representing the "session" and one > the "request". Or, you could take a look at how Weld implements conversations > for inspiration. > > I think we maybe would add a conversation scope like this, that is just bound > by maps and api, not tied to the web, in some later version of DeltaSpike. > > On 2 Apr 2012, at 21:10, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> Maybe the confusion stems from my lack of experience creating custom >> contexts. Let me explain what I'm trying to do. >> >> I'm trying to manage a state machine, SM, which has been associated with a >> particular session scope of a communications link. The current state is a >> scope associated w/ that SM. When the SM transitions to a new state the old >> state/scope is destroyed and a new one is created. >> >> I think that it's kind of like a conversation. Is there any example code >> that I could look at that supports this kind of scenario? >> >> >> Regards, >> Alan >> >> >> >> On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Gerhard Petracek wrote: >> >>> i agree with pete. >>> in myfaces codi we have a basic (internal) infrastructure for more advanced >>> conversations and a spi for customizing the default behaviour. >>> the infrastructure itself just makes sense for "similar" scopes (right now >>> we have 4 scopes based on it and they share most of the implementation). >>> >>> -> it doesn't make sense for scopes which are too different (and the spi >>> should be enough to customize the default behaviour of existing scopes). >>> it would be nice if you share your requirements, maybe there is an existing >>> (custom) scope you can use. >>> >>> regards, >>> gerhard >>> >>> >>> >>> 2012/4/2 Pete Muir <[email protected]> >>> >>>> I'm not quite sure what this would constitute, beyond a trivial base class >>>> or a consistent start/stop API. Every context has quite different >>>> requirements in my experience, and the hard part is linking the context to >>>> the start/stop points, and to whatever backs the context, not the actual >>>> context implementation. >>>> >>>> Do you have some ideas about what utilities you need? >>>> >>>> On 1 Apr 2012, at 18:05, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>>> >>>>> It sure would be handy if there were a set of utilities available to >>>> help framework developers who wish to implement custom Contexts. Maybe I >>>> missed something during my perusal or maybe it's not all that tough. >>>>> >>>>> The context that I need to implement is something of a conversational >>>> nature. So I don't think that it's trivial to implement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alan >>>> >>>> >> >
