sorry for being short in answers previously. I am not at home yet. Will jump in again later.
Mario -----Original Message----- From: simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, Okt 7, 2007 12:44 pm Subject: Re: [orchestra] getting ready for a release To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <[email protected]>To: [email protected] On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 11:17 +0200, Mario Ivankovits wrote: > in case of jsf and servlet the filter sets the appropriate framework adapter > and there it might be reqired to use different init parameters. > > >> > In case of local there is no real session and thus this one do not reuse the > servlet session and creates a new convman per lfa. > >Agreed. The local adapter case is actually simpler than the "mixed >jsp/jsf" case, because we can assume a different fa instance is used in each >case. > > >> > We just have to ensure that the convman do not cache the convmess any more > but to look it up from the fa. > >This is just a partial answer to my question (1) below. You don't want the >conversationManager to manage the messager lifetime any more. Ok, but what now >does? Is it the responsability of the fa to cache the >relevant instance in the user session? Or cache an instance per-request? Or >should the fa return a new instance each time? Or should an fa >allocate only one instance ever, shared among all users? The current >behaviour is effectively per-user, because it is held by >conversationManager. > >Question 2 also still exists: how does the user specify for each fa (eg a JSF >one and a JSP one) which messager to use? Via a filter config >parameter? Or one of my suggestions below? > >The messager is only used rarely (we hope), so I guess performance is not an >issue. > >Alternatively, should we create a separate fa instance per request? The fa >could then cache it as a member, implicitly making it cache >per-request. We still couldn't allow the fa to be a Spring bean though, unless >the filters become spring-specific. Possibly the jsf filter could use JSF >variable resolution which would be effectively the same thing. However what >would be the equivalent for the >BasicFrameworkAdapterFilter? > >Regards, > >Simon > >> > Mario > > -----Original Message----- > From: simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sunday, Okt 7, 2007 10:30 am > Subject: Re: [orchestra] getting ready for a release > To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <[email protected]>To: MyFaces > Development <[email protected]> > > Hmm. There is only ever one ConversationManager for a user session. It > >is the ConversationManager that holds a reference to the appropriate > >ConversationMessager to use when reporting problems. This ref is > >initialised just once, when the conversationManager for a user session is > >created. > > > >However Dan wants to be able to run t
