Haven't had the time to review it yet, I am afraid

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Will Shaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> No thoughts on this one?
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Will Shaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>  Current users should be unaffected by this patch and can continue to use
>> LongConversations as they are today.
>>  This patch allows for "Private (Long) Conversations" with:
>>
>> Guid
>> id = UnitOfWork.StartPrivateConversation();
>>
>> This will then start a Long conversation in private mode. It can be
>> accessed through querystring or request parameters as follows:
>>
>> <a href="/Home/StartPrivateConversation/">Start Private Conversation</a>
>> <a href="/Home/DoWork/?LongConversationKey=<%=
>> ViewData["ConversationKey"] %>">Do Work</a>
>> <a href="/Home/EndConversation/?LongConversationKey=<%=
>> ViewData["ConversationKey"] %>">End Private Conversation</a>
>>
>> Note that the LongConversationKey can be changed to something else in the
>> app.config.
>>
>> It is now possible to do the following:
>>
>> 1 start a long conversation in private mode
>> 2 save some entities / make some changes
>> 3 in a separate page, make immediate changes without a conversation
>> 4 finish the private conversation, persisting the changes from the private
>> conversation
>>
>> etc
>>
>> UnitOfWork.StartLongConversation() will start one that doesn't need to be
>> passed via LongConversationKey=XXX
>>
>> Note that calling UnitOfWork.EndLongConversation() will end public and
>> private conversations - whichever one happens to be used.
>> If you ask for a long conversation key that does not exist, an exception
>> will be thrown. If you don't include a Key, no exception will be thrown as
>> would be expected.
>>
>> This is very useful for AJAX intensive work where you expect users to have
>> multiple requests going at the same time. (Polling updates etc.)
>>
>>
>>      I've tested these changes in a separate asp.net mvc project, but did
>> not know how to write tests for them as it relies on the session and request
>> variables. Perhaps there is a better way to design this so that it is more
>> testable.
>>
>>  -Will
>>
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Rhino Tools Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to