"hkarapuu" wrote : anonymous wrote : IllegalStateException should be thrown if 
@Begin(nested=true) is encountered and there is no long-running conversation 
active.
  | 
  | 
  | I think that might cause some difficulties with reuse and recursive use.
  | 
  | I.e. In crud application i can start creation of a new object from a master 
list (=starting new conversation), OR from within the creation of another 
object (=starting nested conversation). In both cases the same @Begin method 
would be called, and the callee should not concern itself who called it or why.

hkarapuu,  do I understand you correctly that you want the following behavior?  
 (The following is the behavior I'd prefer to see if I could choose...)

When @Begin(nested=true) is encountered and there is already a long-running 
conversation active, a new nested conversation (which is also long-running) 
gets created.

When @Begin(nested=true) is encountered and there is NO long-running 
conversation active,  a nested conversation does NOT get created. Instead, the 
temporary conversation being active gets promoted to a long-running 
conversation.  So we get the same behavior in this case as would happen if 
@Begin (without nested=true) was encountered.


The thing quoted above with the IllegalStateException is not my proposal. 
Rather, it is my interpretation based on the code of
org.jboss.seam.core.Manager.beginNestedConversation() what the intented 
behavior probably is.

If I could vote for a behavior, I wouldn't choose the one with the 
IllegalStateException either.  I'd choose the one described in this post.
 
But clearly,  the present behavior where a nested (but temporary instead of 
long-running) conversation gets created when @Begin(nested=true) gets 
encountered and there is no long-running conversation active, looks not like 
intended to me.


anonymous wrote : 
  | Disclaimer; i'm only evaluating Seam so i might have understood things 
wrong.

Me too.

View the original post : 
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4060784#4060784

Reply to the post : 
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4060784
_______________________________________________
jboss-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user

Reply via email to