Who would implement all of these features? So many work and potential bugs...
Maybe it's the way easier to update SWF plugin to version 2? Gabriel Belingueres-2 wrote: > > I also agree that implementing something similar to SWF2 is not very > compelling. > > However having implemented conversations build it in the framework > have its advantages, mostly because I'm not sure if it can be > implemented/integrated very cleanly/easily writing a third party > plugin. > > I was thinking on which features would need to have an implementation > of conversations for S2: > > * Automatic propagation of the conversationId parameter using S2 tags > (s:url, s:form, s:action, s:include) unless some no propagation > attribute is specified? (implies modify the simple template) > > * The s:token tag would put the token in conversation scope (need a > new token interceptor?) > > * Add new objects to access from pages: > - add a #conversation inside the context map (just like #session, > #application, etc.) > - modify #attr object to search the current conversation before > session > > * API: > - Add interfaces resembling session scope: ConversationAware that > injects a Map<String, Object>. > - Add interface to access low level functionality, like getting > the conversationId, begin/end conversation, get the conversation map, > etc. > - Add conversation control with annotations? @Begin, @End? > - Add additional control flags to action methods? (I did this in > an implementation) Something similar to transaction demarcation: > Required, RequiresNew, NotSupported, etc. > > * Bijection with annotations: Not fundamentally necessary but a neat > feature: @In, @Out > > * Nested conversations support? Similar to Seam (but maybe we can find > a way of storing conversation values in a ValueStack, instead of a > Map) > > * Natural conversation ids support: Implies the user supply the > conversation id (not hard to implement). > > > > I don't know if those features can be obtained by hooking of the > plugin extension points. > > Also all this modifications make me think that perhaps the least > intrusive thing to do would be to add a new defaultStack (supporting > conversations) instead of modify the current one? > > Gabriel > > 2009/12/11 Musachy Barroso <musa...@gmail.com>: >> It would be a lot easier to fix the struts plugin to work with SWF 2. >> Reinventing the wheel is evil. >> >> musachy >> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Dale Newfield <d...@newfield.org> wrote: >>> Gabriel Belingueres wrote: >>>> >>>> built-in the web framework >>> >>> In order to do this we'd need to add in some information in the form and >>> in >>> every link leading from one page of the form to another so that it's >>> constantly submitted to the server to keep the user associated with the >>> right conversation. >>> >>> The former could be done by adding a hidden element in the s:form >>> freemarker >>> templates, and adding an interceptor that notices that value and does >>> the >>> right thing (sortof like the checkbox interceptor, but instead of >>> modifying >>> the request parameters it has to swap in the target object -- I guess >>> this >>> only makes sense when used in combination with the modelDriven framework >>> (which I've always avoided)). >>> >>> The latter is non-trivial (well, the same interceptor would work). It >>> would >>> mean context-sensitive changes to the output of the URL tag. It >>> wouldn't be >>> too tough for the url tag to look and see if it's inside a s:form tag, >>> but >>> what about other links on the page outside the bounds of the form? What >>> about ones generated before the form open tag? >>> >>> I guess what I'm trying to say is that to get something like this >>> working >>> there are a bunch of moving parts that effect a number of pieces of the >>> framework, and cause the framework to have to inject much more "magic" >>> into >>> the rendered pages. If it were built in as part of the framework I'd >>> still >>> want it to need to be explicitly specified wherever it's desired (extra >>> attributes on the form, url, and every input tag) so that we don't have >>> users getting freaked out about all the extra stuff in their pages that >>> they >>> didn't ask for. >>> >>> -Dale >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Conversations-%28continued-from-%22struts-2.2-and-guice%22%29-tp26737327p26795875.html Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
