On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
One of the items to be addressed for conversational services is the
definition of a SessionScopeContainer, which seems to be distinct from
HttpSessionScopeContainer. If that's the case then one question is
what
identifier to use for each one.
Currently, the value o.a.t.spi.model.Scope.SESSION is being used by
HttpSessionScopeContainer and processing the @Scope("SESSION")
annotation
yields this value, which means an http scope container is implied.
However,
the c+i spec states that the use of such an annotation indicates a
conversational scope in general (assuming that an http scope can be
seen as
a particular form of one).
So it seems like the SESSION value and annotation should be used
for the
more general form of scope. What is not clear is whether a new
annotation
value would be needed for http session scopes. An alternative could
be to
use the same value for both forms, but then we'd still need a way to
indicate what scope container to assign to the corresponding component
instance.
Any thoughts?
You've hit upon an area of the spec I was intending to clarify at
some point. In fact, we need to add scope text back into the C&I
spec. I think the easiest approach may be to have a custom attribute
value such as "SESSION" for HTTP sessions and reserve
"CONVERSATIONAL" the the more general stateful interaction.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
