myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig McClanahan" <>
Subject Re: MyFaces Fusion Naming
Date Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:40:28 GMT
On 3/2/07, Werner Punz <> wrote:
> Arash Rajaeeyan schrieb:
> > and may be thats because shale has chosen a different approach?
> >
> No...
> Actually I  think the fusion conversation system is one level lower than
> shale dialog.
> While shale dialog basically follows the approach -> configuration of
> dialog scopes, have something which can keep objects in ram during
> the dialog.
> the fusion conversation system is along the lines of:
> providing a programmatic accessible scope mechanism based on spring 2.0s
> basic scope control which also is able
> to handle orm entity manager control, no dialog configuration whatsoever
> (except for a spring bean entry).
> Nothing speaks against accessing this programmatic control from a
> configuration based dialog system, and only a few things currently
> prevent it from being accessible from other webframeworks outside of the
> jsf scope.
> But as Mario said, who knows what the future will bring.

One thing I've wondered as I've watched the fusion stuff go by ... in
an architecture that is so heavily based on Spring 2 already, why
wasn't Spring Web Flow used?  It looks like the core value add you
wanted (managing the persistence tier resources at a per-conversation
level instead of per-request) could have been done with SWF just as
easily as writing your own conversation scope stuff.


View raw message