On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:21:36 -0400 James Carman <[email protected]> wrote: > > I fully agree. Conversation scope is a kludge for a broken model, > > and in the end nothing more than a specialized form of global > > variables. > > To which model are you referring?
Not a model in the Wicket sense, but the model of application development where you throw everything into a big bag (e.g. the session, or any other such scope). > > Just put your state into the appropriate page or component instances > > and/or models, and you get *any* scope you need, for free. > > Your business logic might not know anything about page/component > instances, but it may support "conversations." Then you already have an object that your components can work on. Put that in a Wicket model and enjoy. My point is this: You either have existing business code that supports conversations - then you don't need Wicket conversations, you need to write your components so they work with the existing code's notion of a conversation. Or you don't have a "business" conversation, and the whole conversation thing is just something for UI workflow. Then you should not have it in the business code. Instead, write components and models so that they keep all the state they need for this "conversation" where they need it. I don't think there needs to be a special abstraction for this, you'd be much better off with keeping state as appropriate for your use case. I may have been unclear in my earlier message, does this make more sense? Carl-Eric --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
