Scott, Thanks for the confirmation. I have already created an issue earlier today:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1095 This setting might not be used too often, but we need it, so please don't delete ;-) Dirk On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The source code is wrong so please log a JIRA ticket. Process Scope was the > name of page flow scope before oracle donated the code to apache. Obviously > somebody forgot to change the source to match the new name used in the > documentation. :) Shows how often that setting is used. > > Scott > > Dirk Krummacker wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> We are using pageFlowScope to "carry over" data from request to >> request. It quite nicely fits our requirements (better than >> t:saveState which we used before). We are using the token-based >> approach where the actual data is stored in the session and only a >> token ("_afPfm") is added as a request parameter. In order to allow >> for some degree of "back-button-history", the mechanics of the >> pageFlowScope store not only one instance of the data in the session, >> but the data for the last 15 requests (default value). >> >> Because of a certain usage pattern we expect from out users >> (right-click and external URLs) I wanted to increase this value to 30. >> Memory is not an issue, we expect only a fairly low number of users >> and the data is not so huge anyway. For this, I consulted the >> documentation in the developer's guide on >> >> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/devguide/configuration.html#trinidad-config.xml >> and found the parameter "page-flow-scope-lifetime". This seemed to be >> exactly what I was searching for, and so I added it to my >> trinidad-config.xml. >> >> But that didn't work. Using a debugger and the Trinidad source, I >> found out that the code was actually checking for the parameter of the >> name "process-scope-lifetime". With that name, everything worked fine >> for me. >> >> Now my question is: Is this possibly a bug in the documentation, or is >> the source code wrong? The documented name "page-flow-scope-lifetime" >> makes more sense to me, plus I have never heard of the term >> "process-scope" in the context of the pageFlowScope. Maybe a remnant >> from ADF times? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Dirk >> > >
