Simon Kitching wrote: > > Well, I wouldn't say "totally different meaning". In both Seam and > Orchestra, it is a scope that is longer than request but shorter than > session. > > But Orchestra conversation scope is "more fine grained". > > I'll add a note to the docs to make this clear for Seam users. > Yes, the emphasis is really on the component instances rather than on an application transaction or logical request. Comparing both concepts in the documentation would be really useful.
Simon Kitching wrote: > > No, there isn't. It's an interesting idea, but messages are stored as a > field within the FacesContext, and a FacesContext is always a > request-scoped object. So storing messages in the "conversation" instead > is a significant behavioural change. And really we *do* want messages > regenerated on each postback. > > I think a solution targeted specifically at the "keep messages over > redirect" issue is useful, but using a conversation as storage isn't the > right tool. > Come to think of it, a solution mixing a conversation-scoped message container and a JSF phase listener that transfers those messages to the FacesContext then clears the container before the render response phase should do the trick. On another line of thought, how is this conversation scope related to MyFaces' (or ADF RC's) pageFlow scope? Is there some kind of integration between the two projects, particularly with regards to the Spring custom scopes? Thanks again, GB -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-Orchestra--Presence---absence-of-conversation--tp21984522p22082457.html Sent from the MyFaces - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
