Haha sure, after working till 2:30 in the morning you have really deserved a 
rest :)

I will look at the conversation sample later today!

LieGrue,
strub

--- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr, 27.3.2009:

> Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]>
> Betreff: Re: setting conversation at request startup
> An: [email protected]
> Datum: Freitag, 27. März 2009, 1:04
> >>Wdyt about OWB-88? I think it
> should be possible to split the whole JSF
> part into an own module without breaking the spec or losing
> performance.
> 
> I will look at it. My brain is stopped :) 
> 
> Goog night all :)
> 
> Gurkan;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:04:57 AM
> Subject: Re: setting conversation at request startup
> 
> 
> apologise for not checking this in, my girlfriend pulled me
> off my chair for watching a movie :)
> I didn't look at the code yet, but I like the idea with the
> SPI. Guess this is the most simple solution here. 
> 
> Wdyt about OWB-88? I think it should be possible to split
> the whole JSF part into an own module without breaking the
> spec or losing performance.
> 
> txs and LieGrue,
> mark
> 
> 
> --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]>
> schrieb am Do, 26.3.2009:
> 
> > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]>
> > Betreff: Re: setting conversation at request startup
> > An: [email protected]
> > Datum: Donnerstag, 26. März 2009, 22:31
> > >>>Firstly I have got
> > compile error in the WebBeansFinder class. It uses
> > *import
> > org.apache.webbeans.conversation.ConversationManager;*
> but
> > it
> > seems that >>>you have not committed this
> package
> > yet, ConversationManager
> > is still in the jsf package.
> > 
> > I have changed the packages. I have just added the
> > *conversation* package and added ConversationManager
> and
> > ConversationImpl into it removing from the jsf
> package.
> > 
> > Gurkan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:43:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: setting conversation at request startup
> > 
> > Hi Mark;
> > 
> > Firstly I have got compile error in the
> WebBeansFinder
> > class. It uses *import
> > org.apache.webbeans.conversation.ConversationManager;*
> but
> > it seems that you have not committed this package
> yet,
> > ConversationManager is still in the jsf package.
> > 
> > For Conversation stuff,
> > 
> > As I said before, specification defines the
> conversations
> > at the JSF level. It does not define anything for
> other than
> > JSF. Maybe we can extend it to use any technology
> other than
> > JSF. I will think about it.
> > 
> > Gurkan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:26:21 PM
> > Subject: setting conversation at request startup
> > 
> > 
> > Gurkan,
> > 
> > I think I need help :)
> > 
> > Currently we set the Converation via the
> > ConversationComponent which gets the conversationId
> from the
> > FacesContext. The FacesContext is essentially the same
> thing
> > as we already have with our WebBeansContext. It's
> 'simply' a
> > ThreadLocal container for session/app/request/page
> > information.
> > 
> > So my idea was to store the conversationId in a kind
> of
> > @RequestScoped bean at start of the ServletRequest, so
> the
> > ConversationComponent doesn't need to get the cid from
> the
> > FacesContext but instead simply asks this
> > 'ConversationBean'. Hmm the longer I think about it,
> why
> > don't we simply create the Conversation at request
> startup?
> > 
> > My basic idea was: we should move the conversationId
> > detection out of the ConversationComponent, and make
> it part
> > of the 'integration stuff'. So for ServletContainers
> this
> > may work different than for PortletBridges and also
> > different for freaky things like a standalone Swing
> > application.
> > 
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> > 
> > 
> >       
> 
> 
>       



Reply via email to