Craig McClanahan schrieb: > I'm on the expert group for WebBeans[1], along with a bunch of other > people. There will definitely be some functional overlap on what > Shale calls the dialog manager -- you will really really really want > to pick one framework for that kind of stuff, be it Shale's, > Trinidad's, Orchestra's, Seam's, WebBeans's, Spring's ... but other > than that there's no reason you shouldn't be able to use Shale > features and WebBeans features together, since they are both built on > top of JSF APIs. > Btw. Craig, you might be happy to hear, that I started with some preliminary Orchestra/Shale integration two days ago. I have nothing to show off yet, because I still tinker around with things and trying to find myself around in both codebases, but so far things look pretty good.
After three hours of reading the codebase and tinkering with it, I was able to fetch orchestra conversational beans within a defined Shale Dialog environment and have shale issuing the end conversation commands which trigger all the jpa and bean related cleanup in orchestra. Yesterday I managed to bind all conversational beans under one dialog to one persistencecontext. I am still a little bit unclear about some things, but things look very good for an integration bridge which is not too hard to configure. (so far it looks like a special shaledialog scope in spring should do the trick) If all goes well then Shale dialog will be the first high level conversation framework with an orchestra binding. Or the other way round the first framework orchestra prodides bindings for.
