I wouldn't call spring-webflow too complicated in comparison to Orchestra - but what you can't do with spring-webflow is to handle the underlying JPA-persistence context out of the box, you can do that with Orchestra.
regards, Martin On 9/28/07, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See here for information about conversations: > http://myfaces.apache.org/orchestra/myfaces-orchestra-core/conversation.html > > If all you want is Spring DI and AOP for your beans, then you don't need > Orchestra. However Spring core doesn't give you conversation scopes by > default. > > Copnversation scopes are *really really* useful, however, and many projects > are looking at providing conversation scopes in some way. Spring WebFlow is > one example, but it seems quite complicated to me; IMO Orchestra is simpler > to use with JSF. > > Regards, Simon > > ---- Martin Dames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > Hey Matthias, > > > > hmm... I don't understand the conversation (dialog, wizard) scope > > exactly. Is this a pretty common scope or an orchestra own name? > > > > As the hightlights says: > > > > " > > It utilizes the powerful Spring bean configuration mechanism instead > > of JSF's managed-bean facility. The release of Spring 2.0 made it > > possible to define custom bean scopes in Spring. If a JSF Managed > > bean is declared in Spring using the Orchestra "conversation" scope, > > then when that bean is referenced from a JSF EL expression it is > > automatically created within that conversation scope. It is not > > necessary for non-conversation-scoped managed beans to be declared > > via Spring, although we do recommend it: request and session scopes > > are also supported and you benefit from having one common syntax for > > defining the beans of your application, from the AOP features Spring > > provides, and from Spring's other advanced features. > > " > > > > Orchestra can be used to don't declare managed-beans in the faces- > > context.xml. > > > > That is actually what I want.. I don't have some "JSF" beans and some > > spring beans in two seperate different syntax conf files. I just want > > to use spring DI. Then I can handle all the beans with the aop, and > > other spring stuff. > > > > So, the question is now... what are the benefit of the conversation > > scope? and what is it exactly? > > > > Thank you very much! > > > > Am 28.09.2007 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Wessendorf: > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > Cagatay's blog is about using Spring's bean facility to *declare* > > > Managed Beans. > > > No need for a declaration of your managed beans inside the > > > faces-config.xml file. > > > > > > Orchestra is about providing a conversion (wizard) scope, that is > > > between request and session. > > > See the Orchestra docs ([1]) for more > > > > > > -M > > > > > > [1] http://myfaces.apache.org/orchestra/index.html > > > > > > On 9/28/07, Martin Dames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hey all, > > >> > > >> I saw yesterday the following solution for using spring app context > > >> for managing beans in jsf: > > >> > > >> http://cagataycivici.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/using-spring-to-manage- > > >> jsf-beans/ > > >> > > >> So this is the same solution as orchestra offers, right? > > >> > > >> Where are the benefits of using an extra lib (orchestra) instead of > > >> just doing the solution above? > > >> > > >> When I am using the conversation scope, can I use the session or > > >> request scope at the same time? (Ok, this would be a spring question > > >> I think) > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
