Well, I guess I'm thinking that you're in a somewhat specialized case where you cannot guarantee synchronized access to data throughout a session.
For me, I'm generally able to do simple CRUD operations without the data changing behind me. I could see that being a problem though if multiple users are allowed access to the same data. On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:11:10 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your explanation of the problem here makes a little more sense to me > > now. I support this change. Hopefully, most people wouldn't have to > > use it, but if you're operating with really volatile data, I could see > > how it could solve a lot of problems. > > What do you mean by "really volatile data"? It would seem that the > only existing way around this would be to make your managed bean have > session scope. Would you consider volatile to mean data that can > change at some point during the session? A session can go on for > hours if a user is active enough. > > I am glad that you agree that the feature should be added. Maybe I > can convince you that is more useful than you think ... Or maybe you > can convince me of another way to solve the problem? I've only > recently started thinking about this problem so maybe there is another > solution out there. If so, I am definitely interested to know what it > would be. This enhancement may seem like overkill but I can't think > of any other way around the problem. > > I strongly suspect that this is one of the reasons that <x:saveState> > was created (although we'd have to check with the creators of > saveState to be sure.) > > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > sean > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
