2012/8/6 Philip Luppens :
> Just a quick remark: wouldn't a specialised object be a better approach for
> this, rather than the entire ValueStack? It seems to me this can get pretty
> huge and therefore impact performance/scaling more than the session-based
> approach. Having a custom object serial
être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité
pour le contenu fourni.
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:42:00 +0200
> Subject: Re: Serializing the ValueStack on a redirect
> To: [email protected]
>
> On Sun, Aug 5,
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Philip,
>
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Philip Luppens
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Paul Benedict
> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think this feature exists but it does in Tapestry (and
> >> probably .NET). It should be possibl
Philip,
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Philip Luppens wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>
>> I don't think this feature exists but it does in Tapestry (and
>> probably .NET). It should be possible to serialize the ValueStack on a
>> redirect, pass it as a 64-bit enco
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I don't think this feature exists but it does in Tapestry (and
> probably .NET). It should be possible to serialize the ValueStack on a
> redirect, pass it as a 64-bit encoded key, and deserialize it. This
> would facilitate greater Redirect-
I don't think this feature exists but it does in Tapestry (and
probably .NET). It should be possible to serialize the ValueStack on a
redirect, pass it as a 64-bit encoded key, and deserialize it. This
would facilitate greater Redirect-After-Post patterns that require
data points to still be active
