@ConversationAccessScoped +1
# name different from any other CDI scope # describes its "Conversation/Dialog" nature # describes its "Automatic" nature, even if it is possible to explicitely close/restart it 2013/6/10 Arne Limburg <[email protected]>: > To honor the automatic nature > > @ConversationAccessScoped > would fit either > > Am 10.06.13 10:18 schrieb "Thomas Andraschko" unter > <[email protected]>: > >>What about AutomaticConversationScoped or similiar? >>AFAIR CODI starts the conversation automatically >> >>Hmm but ViewAccessScoped is also very similiar to a "automatic >>conversation"... don't know >> >>2013/6/10 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> >> >>> Good direction >>> >>> What about >>> @UnitOfWorkScoped >>> ? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Arne >>> >>> Am 06.06.13 18:34 schrieb "Jason Porter" unter >>><[email protected]>: >>> >>> >WebWorkUnit ? >>> > >>> > >>> >On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Gerhard Petracek < >>> >[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> "dialog" is misleading (in the technical context). >>> >> "workflow" is better but maybe misleading since one of the first >>> >> associations is a workflow engine >>> >> >>> >> regards, >>> >> gerhard >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2013/6/6 Adrian Gonzalez <[email protected]> >>> >> >>> >> > Hi, >>> >> > Orchestra doc refers to conversation / dialog (even workflow). >>> >> > DialogScoped would appear to me to be a fine proposition (at least >>> >> > equivalent to ConversationScoped ;) ) >>> >> > >>> >> > ----- Mail original ----- >>> >> > De : Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> >>> >> > À : [email protected] >>> >> > Cc : >>> >> > Envoyé le : Jeudi 6 juin 2013 15h21 >>> >> > Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] deltaspike-0.5 features >>> >> > >>> >> > #1 imo those names don't fit at all. >>> >> > #2 starting the scope explicitly is against the initial idea >>>(please >>> >> have a >>> >> > look at [1] and even [2] as well as any other std. scope) and it's >>>an >>> >> > important (+ intended) difference. >>> >> > >>> >> > regards, >>> >> > gerhard >>> >> > >>> >> > [1] >>> http://os890.blogspot.co.at/2011/04/slides-codi-conversations.html >>> >> > [2] http://myfaces.apache.org/orchestra/index.html >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > 2013/6/6 titou10 titou10 <[email protected]> >>> >> > >>> >> > > DialogScope ? >>> >> > > FlowScope ? (Possible confusion with JSF 2.2 ?) >>> >> > > ExtendedConversationScope ? >>> >> > > CustomConversationScope ? >>> >> > > ConversationCustomScope ? >>> >> > > ConversationExtendedScope ? >>> >> > > ExtendedScope ? >>> >> > > DSConversationScope ? >>> >> > > RequestExtendedScope ? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Also should this scope : >>> >> > > - be started and terminated explicitely a-la "CDI >>>ConversationScope" >>> >> > > with conversation.begin() and conversation.end() >>> >> > > - start automatically, end be terminated explicitly a-la CODI >>> >> > > ConversationScope? conversation.close() >>> >> > > ... in addition to be terminated when the "parent" >>>(Session/Window >>> >> scope) >>> >> > > ends.. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > IMHO it seems the first option seems better for us as it may be >>>used >>> >> > > in a more generic way and . >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > 2013/6/6 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: >>> >> > > > you are very welcome to suggest a better name. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > regards, >>> >> > > > gerhard >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > 2013/6/6 titou10 titou10 <[email protected]> >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >> Suggestion: >>> >> > > >> When porting CODI "ConversationScope" to DS, should it be >>> >>possible >>> >> to >>> >> > > >> NOT name this Scope "ConversationScope" >>> >> > > >> Currently, when using CODI, it is very confusing to have 2 >>> >>different >>> >> > > >> scopes having the same "ConversationScope" name: the CDI one >>>and >>> >>the >>> >> > > >> CODI. Introduce a lot of confusion when communicating between >>> >> > > >> developers >>> >> > > >> Thx >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> 2013/6/1 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >>> >> > > >> > Hi! >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > It's time to go for planing ds-0.5. >>> >> > > >> > I'd say the release should be pretty small this time. Mostly >>> >>bug >>> >> > fixes >>> >> > > >> and a few minor enhancements. And max 1 or 2 bigger bullet >>> >>features. >>> >> > > >> > The goal is to release ds-0.5 end of this month. >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > A few things on the list as I remember so far: >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > * Finish graduation and apply latest changes to our Docs. >>> >> > > >> > * Servlet module. Please add JIRAs which feature you like to >>> >>see >>> >> in >>> >> > > this >>> >> > > >> module >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > * Improve the JSF module. We still miss a few features from >>> >>CODI >>> >> and >>> >> > > >> seam-faces >>> >> > > >> > . improve ClientWindow handling >>> >> > > >> > . improve the typesafe navigation >>> >> > > >> > . add @ConfigurationScoped and @ViewAccessScoped >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > * Improve the configuration >>> >> > > >> > . brainstorming about configuration 'categories' as >>>requested >>> >>a >>> >> few >>> >> > > >> times already >>> >> > > >> > . ProjectStage and/or property specific configuration >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > This DISCUSS will be closed in 72h. New feature requests >>>after >>> >> that >>> >> > > time >>> >> > > >> will be handled in deltaspike-0.6 (unless they are blockers). >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > The timeframe I would suggest: >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > * Implement new features during 2013-06-12 >>> >> > > >> > * Bugfixing and documentation until 2013-06-19 >>> >> > > >> > * start with the release on 2013-06-23 >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > Any objection, ideas, feedback? >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> > txs and LieGrue, >>> >> > > >> > strub >>> >> > > >> > >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >-- >>> >Jason Porter >>> >http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp >>> >>> >
