[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Geoff Callender updated TAPESTRY-2703:
--------------------------------------
Description:
This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep
2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some
agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food
for thought, so I've captured it here for further consideration.
Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important
to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance
to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The
problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole
application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between
users", which is not quite right, either.
The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so
maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
@SessionScoped
@SessionShared
@ShareAcrossSession
It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference
to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
@StateObject
with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
Geoff
The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
was:
This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep
2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion. Some
agreed but not all. Amongst those who agreed, the discussion threw up some
interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further
consideration.
Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important
to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance
to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The
problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole
application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between
users", which is not quite right, either.
The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so
maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
@SessionScoped
@SessionShared
@ShareAcrossSession
It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference
to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
@StateObject
with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
Geoff
The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
> ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAPESTRY-2703
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703
> Project: Tapestry
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: tapestry-core
> Affects Versions: 5.0.15
> Reporter: Geoff Callender
>
> This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18
> Sep 2008. I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion.
> Some agreed but not all. Regardless, the discussion threw up some
> interesting food for thought, so I've captured it here for further
> consideration.
> Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
> Date: 16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's
> important to have terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the
> last chance to tidy some of these up before T5.0 goes final.
> One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState. The
> problem is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole
> application, ie. application-scoped; which is not its purpose.
> The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between
> users", which is not quite right, either.
> The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so
> maybe we should put "session" in the name? Eg.
> @SessionScoped
> @SessionShared
> @ShareAcrossSession
> It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference
> to the persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
> Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
> @StateObject
> with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
> What do others think? Are you happy with ApplicationState?
> Geoff
> The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
