deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Custom Context utilities
Date Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:44:03 GMT
If you are happy to be tied to a specific CDI implementation, you could use the Weld "bound
conversations" - http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/1.1.5.Final/en-US/html/contexts.html#d0e5506
- which can be backed by two maps, one representing the "session" and one the "request". Or,
you could take a look at how Weld implements conversations for inspiration.

I think we maybe would add a conversation scope like this, that is just bound by maps and
api, not tied to the web, in some later version of DeltaSpike.

On 2 Apr 2012, at 21:10, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> Maybe the confusion stems from my lack of experience creating custom contexts.  Let me
explain what I'm trying to do.
> 
> I'm trying to manage a state machine, SM, which has been associated with a particular
session scope of a communications link.  The current state is a scope associated w/ that SM.
 When the SM transitions to a new state the old state/scope is destroyed and a new one is
created.  
> 
> I think that it's kind of like a conversation.  Is there any example code that I could
look at that supports this kind of scenario?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> 
>> i agree with pete.
>> in myfaces codi we have a basic (internal) infrastructure for more advanced
>> conversations and a spi for customizing the default behaviour.
>> the infrastructure itself just makes sense for "similar" scopes (right now
>> we have 4 scopes based on it and they share most of the implementation).
>> 
>> -> it doesn't make sense for scopes which are too different (and the spi
>> should be enough to customize the default behaviour of existing scopes).
>> it would be nice if you share your requirements, maybe there is an existing
>> (custom) scope you can use.
>> 
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2012/4/2 Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
>> 
>>> I'm not quite sure what this would constitute, beyond a trivial base class
>>> or a consistent start/stop API. Every context has quite different
>>> requirements in my experience, and the hard part is linking the context to
>>> the start/stop points, and to whatever backs the context, not the actual
>>> context implementation.
>>> 
>>> Do you have some ideas about what utilities you need?
>>> 
>>> On 1 Apr 2012, at 18:05, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It sure would be handy if there were a set of utilities available to
>>> help framework developers who wish to implement custom Contexts.   Maybe I
>>> missed something during my perusal or maybe it's not all that tough.
>>>> 
>>>> The context that I need to implement is something of a conversational
>>> nature.  So I don't think that it's trivial to implement.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>> 
>>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message