> I presume you mean marking beans with something like > @Conversation(lifetime="access", name="myConversation") > or > @Scope(scope="conversation.access", name="myConversation")
or @Conversation(scope="access", name="myConversation") > > Yes that would be cool. > > It's debatable whether the annotation should be in the Spring framework or in > Orchestra. I think in Orchestra we are able to get fixes in faster. (not knowing the community / company behind Spring well) > > The first example is the sort of thing that might belong in Orchestra. > Support would then need to be implemented within orchestra for each DI > framework that Orchestra supports - assuming the framework provides > sufficient hooks to do that. > > The second example is more spring-specific, as it is tied to the fact that in > the Orchestra Spring binding, a conversation scope is actually a bean which > has a name eg "conversation.access". > > BTW, we really do need to sort out the problem of defining the > conversation-name and the lifetime at the same point. It is very convenient > for the basic case, but when multiple beans are in the same conversation then > they must declare the same lifetime values which is inelegant (data > duplication). > > > > And do you think it is possible to have proxy scoped bean using > > > annotation? > > If you use the latest Orchestra snapshot you do not have to use the > > aop:scoped-proxy anymore. This will be done automatically by Orchestra. > > For other proxy scoped beans, Simon tried something in this area, and as > > far as I remember with success. Even though Spring should provide such a > > annotation on their own, we probably can share our code if wanted. It is > > not part of Orchestra. > > Yep, marking conversation-scoped beans with the aop:scoped-proxy tag is no > longer needed in orchestra-1.1-SNAPSHOT. We do have some old code for doing > that with annotations, though: it is about 20 lines. > > Currently the code is in com.ops.OPSJ.spring.ScopedProxy; we could share that > if needed although I don't think there is much point in making it part of > Orchestra. > > Regards, > Simon > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
