Ok, now I understand what you mean. Will it stay this way, or are there plans to add the the conversation SPI to the spec? I think I heard somewhere that they were planning to add those parts to the CDI spec, making it possible to use the conversation scope in a portable way. In that case, I'd rather leave it like it is now and move the to new SPI later on. Writing a custom conversation scope for wicket seems like a lot of work for something that already works fine with Seam.
On Tuesday 17 April 2012 10:33:12 Mark Struberg wrote: > The seam-conversation stuff only works with one of the n CDI containers: > Weld. > > > It will NOT work on Apache OpenWebBeans, Geronimo, WAS, TomEE, etc > It will not even run on a few versions of GlassFish because they use a > different Weld version. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Emond Papegaaij <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:21 AM > > Subject: Re: wicket-cdi > > > >T hanks for the feedback! It's good that other people take a look at this > > > > code > > before we put it in Wicket. > > > > I don't understand the problem with @ConversationScoped. What do you mean > > with > > non-portable? Portable to what? AFAIK the conversation scope is part of > > the > > CDI spec and the current implementation in wicket-cdi works just fine, at > > least it does so for us. From what I understand we use it the way it > > should be used. > > > > Best regards, > > Emond > > > > On Tuesday 17 April 2012 08:57:37 Mark Struberg wrote: > >> A possible solution scenario: > >> > >> > >> a.) write an own @WicketConversationScoped scope + Context > >> implementation > >> which especially fits wicket, supports your browser tab handling, > >> conversation propagation etc. This will fully portable and you have ALL > >> the > >> functionality fully in your own hands! > >> > >> > >> b.) write a small extension which uses the @Observes > >> ProcessAnnotatedType. > >> In this Extension you can easily remove all cdi @ConversationScoped > >> annotations and replace them via your very own @WicketConversation at > >> container startup. Just modify the AnnotatedType as you need. > >> > >> The result is that a user can either use @WicketConversationScoped or > >> the > >> CDI @ConversationScoped but both will be handled as your own wicket > >> conversations. > >> > >> You might also implement your own pendant to > >> javax.enterprise.context.Conversation which is the interface to control > >> the > >> conversation lifecycle from within an application. I don't think that > > > > you > > > >> need to support the built-in Conversation control. The important point > >> is > >> imo that people can reuse components which are annotated with > >> @ConversationScoped. For them it would make no difference if the > >> non-working CDI conversation or your own wicket conversation Context > >> implementation does the actual work underneath. > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >> > From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> > Cc: > >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:29 AM > >> > Subject: Re: wicket-cdi > >> > > >> > Whoops, clicked send to quickly ^^ > >> > > >> > s/ > >> > I try to get > >> > / > >> > > >> > I try to get a push request done until the weekend. > >> > / > >> > > >> > LieGrue, > >> > strub > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > >> >> From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >> >> To: "[email protected]" > > > > <[email protected]> > > > >> >> Cc: > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:18 AM > >> >> Subject: wicket-cdi > >> >> > >> >> Hi folks! > >> >> > >> >> I've quickly checked the wicket-cdi project on github and it > > > > looks like > > > >> > a > >> > > >> >> good start. > >> >> > >> >> I'd just change a few tiny bits > >> >> > >> >> 1.) use org.apache.geronimo.specs packages instead of javax.* > > > > packages > > > >> > because > >> > > >> >> of license reasons > >> >> > >> >> 2.) drop the CDI conversation support. To be honest (as a CDI EG > > > > member) > > > >> > The > >> > > >> >> built-in CDI Conversation is not that useful as it has quite a > > > > few > > > >> >> flaws, > >> >> > >> > no > >> > > >> >> control api, etc. > >> >> > >> >> It might be better to introduce an own portable > > > > WicketConversation which > > > >> >> supports the wicket browser-tab handling. Having a non-portable > >> >> > >> > conversation > >> > > >> >> support is imo a no-go. This will most probably not even run on > > > > future > > > >> >> Weld > >> >> > >> >> containers... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 3.) Please add a profile for Apache OpenWebBeans as well. Just to > > > > make > > > >> >> sure > >> >> > >> > your > >> > > >> >> project is really portable. > >> >> > >> >> I try to get > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> txs and LieGrue, > >> >> strub
