myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manfred Geiler" <manfred.gei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
Date Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:38:25 GMT
"access" says exactly what it does. keeps the conversation active as
long as it is accessed - ie. as long as any bean in this conversation
is used during the next request.

--Manfred


On Jan 29, 2008 9:32 PM, Kito D. Mann <kmann@virtua.com> wrote:
> Hmmm... I agree that "flash" can be misleading, but "access" doesn't seem very descriptive
to me. I think "page" or "view" might be more appropriate.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Kitching [mailto:simon.kitching@chello.at]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:00 AM
> > To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
> > Subject: [orchestra] rename scope "flash" to "access"
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Currently in orchestra there are two types of conversation scope:
> > "manual" and "flash". With "manual", a conversation must be explicitly
> > ended via either a call to the Orchestra API, or use of a jsf tag. With
> > "flash", the conversation is automatically ended when a request cycle
> > ends and no object in the conversation was accessed.
> >
> > Some people have noted that other libraries use the term "flash scope"
> > for a somewhat different purpose. I therefore propose changing the name
> > to "access scope".
> >
> > This change will mean renaming about 6 classes, updating the examples
> > and updating the website documentation.
> >
> > I intend to keep backwards compatibility with 1.0 to the level where
> > normal Spring configuration files still work unaltered (and will test
> > this by making sure the existing orchestra examples work unaltered,
> > before I update them to show the "new" config).
> >
> > However for classes which would only be used by people deriving their
> > own custom scope-managers, etc., I don't currently plan to keep full
> > binary compatibility.
> >
> > Are there any objections?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
>
>



-- 
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

Mime
View raw message