Of course, nothing prevents one writing a semi-automatic workspace management layer on top of Seam that would take care of detecting and closing abandoned conversations (for example, along the lines I suggested on the Trails list). The Seam guys have carefully removed any dependencies to JSF. In practice, integrating Tap5 with Seam might be the fastest way of getting practical results for a conversational scope, and wouldn't solve only one but two problems at the same time (conversations and session-per-conversation), of course at the expense of tying the implementation more closely with Hibernate or at least JPA, but that's probably what the majority is using anyway. I'm sure the Seam guys would love to see Tapestry support for Seam. And btw, Wicket guys have already done this. Given that you Geoff are probably inclined to use J2EE container anyway, wouldn't it make sense to you to start looking at creating tapestry-seam integration project? It might be an interesting project to take on for me as well.
Kalle On 11/28/07, Kalle Korhonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > >
