I completely agree with Geoff that a good-enough generic support for conversations could make developing web applications much easier and it's one of the remaining big issues that web frameworks typically don't offer a solution for out-of-the-box. Seam's got a solution that works well for typical enterprise apps that may have high amount of interaction with the database but don't have a huge number of users. While Seam ignores the problem of closing abandoned conversations, it'll quickly lead to much higher memory consumption as open conversations generally occupy memory until explicitly closed or the session is expired.
There's been various tries at solving the conversation support for Tapestry and we are planning on supporting conversation in Trails with a tighter memory management model for better scalability. I've written some notes on session-per-conversation at http://archive.trails.codehaus.org/users/[EMAIL PROTECTED]'s relevant for this discussion as well. For Tap5, you can of course come up with your own solution, but it'd be great if the framework had a generic support for conversations that would work well enough in the most common cases out-of-the-box and could be extended. Kalle On 11/28/07, Thiago HP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/28/07, Francois Armand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I completely agree with your remarks, and it's a kind of pity that T5 is > > such in advance in so many areas, and in the same time have to deals by > > hand with that. > > > Let's not forget that Tapestry 5 is still alpha and there are other areas > needing work too, AJAX being one of the most anticipated ones. In > addition, > it has a very flexible architecture that allows developers (Howard, other > T5 > comitters or me or you) to implement any missing feature. ;) > > Thiago >
