myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Travis Reeder <>
Subject Re: New Scope
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:57:11 GMT
What would it take to get a new header into the HTTP spec?  ;)

Craig McClanahan wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:37:18 -0800, Travis Reeder
><> wrote:
>> Definitely.  I would also try to make it so that in faces-config.xml you
>>could set 
>> <managed-bean-scope>window</managed-bean-scope>
>That kind of change would require a change to the JSF spec, however. 
>The JSF 1.2 spec just got published in Early Draft Review
>(, so send feedback to the expert
>group ( for the kinds of things you would
>like to see added.
>My personal opinion is that a scope "longer than a request but shorter
>than a session" is something that should be built into the Servlet
>API, because it's quite relevant across all the technologies built on
>top of servlets.  It would seem this should be a prerequisite for any
>change in the point APIs (like JSF).
>> I think windowScope is a better term for this or frameScope rather than
>>pageFlowScope because window or frame is more what it actually is.
>If by "window" you are trying to correspond to a browser window, there
>are some interesting technical challeges -- for example, you can't
>assume that each window has its own cookies, so you'll need some other
>way for the server to tell submits apart.  Ideally, one could
>implement this in such a way that anyone's JSF components would work
>transparently, but that may or may not be possible.
>In my musings on the Shale proposal
>( I have been calling this
>sort of thing a "dialog" scope -- although "conversation" might also
>be a reasonable term for it.  In previous threads, I've also seen this
>concept called "transaction scope" because it would tend to last
>through a "business transaction", and terminate with what amounts to a
>"commit" or a "rollback".
>Besides multiple windows, the ADF approach appears to miss another
>important use case -- *nested* dialogs (I'm in the middle of one
>dialog but push down into a subordinate dialog to compute some result,
>then pop back up to pick up where I left off).  Beehive
>( supports this capability,
>and I think it's very useful.
>> Travis
>Further comments below.
>> Heath Borders wrote: 
>> +1! ADF missed a big feature, though. We should make a custom variable
>>resolver that automatically checks the pageFlowScope Map for a variable name
>>AFTER checking all the other scopes as required by the JSF spec. This would
>>mean that you wouldn't have to prepend "pageFlowScope." onto all of your
>>variable names.
>This could actually be accomplished by a pluggable VariableResolver
>that implemented the extra check at the appropriate point.  However, I
>would think you'd check the new "scope" after request scope, but
>before session scope, in order to match the expanding lifetimes of the
>scopes in which the search takes place.
>>Also the <setActionListener /> sounds handy as well. On Mon,
>>3 Jan 2005 00:11:37 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf
>><> wrote: 
>> Travis, I just read the article and think it is a fine concept. Also their
>><setActionListener/> is nice. It prevents developers from some work on
>>creating *detail* pages, as pointed out in the article. So here is my +1 on
>>that! Matthias -----Original Message----- From: Travis Reeder
>>[] Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:42
>>PM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: New Scope It looks like the smart
>>people over at Oracle already implemented my idea in ADF, they call it
>>pageFlowScope: Implemented almost exactly the same
>>way I had proposed. Anyone opposed to working a new optional scope into my
>>faces? I volunteer if everyone's ok with it because I really badly need
>>this. Travis Stefan Langer wrote: Travis Reeder wrote: What do you guys
>>think of this?
>> I
>>don't think this will work since there is no concept of a window in the http
>>protocol. How does the server know that a new window has been opened? Unless
>>the client tells it which currently it doesn't. So how do you decide when to
>>create and when to destroy the window scope? I think the idea of Korhonen
>>seems more practical although I quite don't see how to implement the
>>deserialization behaviour in a consistent mannor without being corruptible
>>by the client. Just my two cents Stefan -- Travis Reeder Ecommstats Web
>> -- Travis Reeder Ecommstats Web Analytics

Travis Reeder
Ecommstats Web Analytics

View raw message