> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:11 PM
> To: MyFaces Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Orchestra] Explicit conversation starting and nested
> conversations
> 
> Hi!
> > Just to be clear, what you're saying is that you can't use the same
> view in
> > more than one conversation at a time?
> >
> At the moment: yes!
> As I wrote, this is something we will allow in the near future, but it
> would require to have a page-flow configuration.
> Hmmm .... probably the new refactored conversationContext will allow it
> programmatically too, not sure yet.
> 
> Anyway, I wonder why this is such an important feature ... As I wrote,
> I
> think most cases can work with "nested-conversation-emulation" (tm ;-)
> )
> and that will be much better in terms of memory usage - and also lowers
> the chance to work with stale objects if these conversations are bound
> to a persistence context.
> 
> Can you please outline some use-cases so we can put them in
> consideration about how to solve that?

I'm considering using Orchestra for an app that has several different tabs,
each with a basic flow (either add a record, or search for a record, then
edit or delete from the results). What makes it complicated is that within a
particular tab, I need to bring up an editor that's technically part of
another tab. So, for example, while in the "Relationships" tab, I may want
to quickly view or edit a Party. The view/edit Party view is usually in the
Party tab. So, essentially I'm reusing the same page in a completely
different flow. 

Now, in reality, I may end up using two different Facelet views that include
the same composition, so this may not be an issue, but you get the idea...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
phone: +1 203-653-2989
fax: +1 203-653-2988




Reply via email to