On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Carl-Eric Menzel <[email protected]>wrote:
> I have to admit I've never quite understood the need for seam-style > conversations in Wicket. Whenever I need to do some kind of > defined workflow, I simply use appropriate IModel instances that get > passed around between the participating components. What is the use > case of using a conversation construct over models? > Indeed, why to save components instead of models ? > > Carl-Eric > www.wicketbuch.de > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:14:14 -0700 > Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > seam-wicket provides a full implementation. > > > > if you want "clean" you can build it yourself, its not too difficult. > > subclass session and inside put a map of <conversationId,conversation> > > and manage that map however you see fit in your app. > > > > -igor > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:55 PM, YK <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Are you planning to develop a conversation/workspace module ? > > > > > > What I mean by "conversation" is a "session portion" or > > > manageable/controllable "mini" session > > > that can be started and finished programmatically. > > > > > > This allows building multi-step programs and/or workflow and permits > > > generally memory (objects in session) management. > > > > > > I know that wicket-seam provides this (partially) but what I would > > > like to know is : could we have a "pure" > > > wicket one ? and if it is feasible. > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > > > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/wicket-conversation-workspace-tp3451294p3451294.html > > > Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive > > > at Nabble.com. > > > > > -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com <http://jweekend.com/>
