That would be ideal. I had always thought of deltaspike as a CDI incubator of sorts.
Regards, Alan On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:57 AM, Pete Muir wrote: > IMO it would be better if CDI offered reusable conversations, like we did > with Weld, rather than it being an extension. So you can just take advantage > of Weld's conversation stuff, or OWB's. > > Maybe there is a need to have something before we get this in CDI 1.1? > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 13:55, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
