The more I think about it, the more I'd like to have named conversation. Since
I can mentally map a named conversation to a use case. What I get from named
conversation is more than just "exit to the entry point".
For now, in my own application, the "named conversation (use case)" is
implement
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote : (but Gavin convinced me it is better)
|
Hi Christian,
Would you mind summarizing why it's better?
Thanks
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4074193#4074193
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?modu
anonymous wrote : This "exit to the entry point" conversation handling is
actually already available with a slightly different model (but Gavin convinced
me it is better) in any seam-gen produced application.
Just curious, but how? I posted about it a while back, and I think Gavin
pointed me t
Didn't read the whole thread, but what the last poster is looking for is not
named conversations. This "exit to the entry point" conversation handling is
actually already available with a slightly different model (but Gavin convinced
me it is better) in any seam-gen produced application.
View
This is a nice feature, would be very useful for people who are doing a lot of
view templating. I have a page called foo-detail.xhtml. This foo-detail page
has CRUD buttons, has its own (nested=true) conversations and the page
accessable from many different sources like all-foos.xhtml, all-bars.
I guess I don't like how named conversations work right now - you have to use
ELConversationIdParameter, which means you can't do nested conversations.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4073770#4073770
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/i
We already support named conversations, but I'd agree that it would be nice to
support the notion of needing to be in a specific conversation to access a
resource rather than just saying "requires conversation". I've argued for this
for quite some time.
View the original post :
http://www.
Yes I am. I thought it was about both customising the cid and giving a
conversation a logical name, but tbh, I really don't know. I'll point Shane at
this thread and we shall be wiser :)
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4073221#4073221
Reply t
Hmmm... I wonder if you're talking about "natural conversation ids." I thought
that was mostly about customizing the cid parmeter name/value, which is
different than what I'm talking about here, I'm pretty sure.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&
This is implemented (not "officially" as there is no docs) in Seam (1.2.1.GA
onwards). Gavin/Shane know about.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4073208#4073208
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply
Yeah, definitely true. At least it'd be optional.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4073206#4073206
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4073206
___
jbos
Sounds good to me, but one man's self-documenting code is another man's
verbosity. Some people dislike this about the Java language in general. I
find it helpful but the Perl kiddies can't stand it.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4073199#4073
12 matches
Mail list logo
