I was just thinking that we would first want to comply with the spec's order, and then check our extension, so that the extension doesn't break any applications relying on standard functionality.
However, if this was added to the spec, then yes, it makes sense to put it after session but before request. On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 18:56:58 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:37:18 -0800, Travis Reeder > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Definitely. I would also try to make it so that in faces-config.xml you > > could set > > <managed-bean-scope>window</managed-bean-scope> > > That kind of change would require a change to the JSF spec, however. > The JSF 1.2 spec just got published in Early Draft Review > (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=252), so send feedback to the expert > group ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for the kinds of things you would > like to see added. > > My personal opinion is that a scope "longer than a request but shorter > than a session" is something that should be built into the Servlet > API, because it's quite relevant across all the technologies built on > top of servlets. It would seem this should be a prerequisite for any > change in the point APIs (like JSF). > > > > > I think windowScope is a better term for this or frameScope rather than > > pageFlowScope because window or frame is more what it actually is. > > > > If by "window" you are trying to correspond to a browser window, there > are some interesting technical challeges -- for example, you can't > assume that each window has its own cookies, so you'll need some other > way for the server to tell submits apart. Ideally, one could > implement this in such a way that anyone's JSF components would work > transparently, but that may or may not be possible. > > In my musings on the Shale proposal > (http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsShale) I have been calling this > sort of thing a "dialog" scope -- although "conversation" might also > be a reasonable term for it. In previous threads, I've also seen this > concept called "transaction scope" because it would tend to last > through a "business transaction", and terminate with what amounts to a > "commit" or a "rollback". > > Besides multiple windows, the ADF approach appears to miss another > important use case -- *nested* dialogs (I'm in the middle of one > dialog but push down into a subordinate dialog to compute some result, > then pop back up to pick up where I left off). Beehive > (http://incubator.apache.org/beehive.html) supports this capability, > and I think it's very useful. > > > Travis > > Further comments below. > > > > > > > Heath Borders wrote: > > +1! ADF missed a big feature, though. We should make a custom variable > > resolver that automatically checks the pageFlowScope Map for a variable name > > AFTER checking all the other scopes as required by the JSF spec. This would > > mean that you wouldn't have to prepend "pageFlowScope." onto all of your > > variable names. > > This could actually be accomplished by a pluggable VariableResolver > that implemented the extra check at the appropriate point. However, I > would think you'd check the new "scope" after request scope, but > before session scope, in order to match the expanding lifetimes of the > scopes in which the search takes place. > > Craig > > > Also the <setActionListener /> sounds handy as well. On Mon, > > 3 Jan 2005 00:11:37 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Travis, I just read the article and think it is a fine concept. Also their > > <setActionListener/> is nice. It prevents developers from some work on > > creating *detail* pages, as pointed out in the article. So here is my +1 on > > that! Matthias -----Original Message----- From: Travis Reeder > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:42 > > PM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: New Scope It looks like the smart > > people over at Oracle already implemented my idea in ADF, they call it > > pageFlowScope: http://tinyurl.com/5jwdc Implemented almost exactly the same > > way I had proposed. Anyone opposed to working a new optional scope into my > > faces? I volunteer if everyone's ok with it because I really badly need > > this. Travis Stefan Langer wrote: Travis Reeder wrote: What do you guys > > think of this? > > http://www.crack3r.com/2004/12/another-scope-for-web-app-parameters.html I > > don't think this will work since there is no concept of a window in the http > > protocol. How does the server know that a new window has been opened? Unless > > the client tells it which currently it doesn't. So how do you decide when to > > create and when to destroy the window scope? I think the idea of Korhonen > > seems more practical although I quite don't see how to implement the > > deserialization behaviour in a consistent mannor without being corruptible > > by the client. Just my two cents Stefan -- Travis Reeder Ecommstats Web > > Analytics www.ecommstats.com > > -- Travis Reeder Ecommstats Web Analytics www.ecommstats.com > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
