Kalle,
I hadn't considered for a second that Tapestry could, or even should,
be integrated with Seam, but it's a wild idea that just might make
sense! Just had a look at the Wicket-Seam Integration code and at
first blush it looks like Tapestry-Seam would be very doable.
For anyone who's interested, have a look at the wicket-seam section in https://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/trunk/
.
I would really love to dig further into this, but I very much doubt I
could find the time. Ideally it would be done by someone who already
has a good handle on Seam. Anyone out there keen to take this on??
Does Tapestry have the equivalent of the wicket-stuff development
area? Should it? http://wicketstuff.org/confluence/display/STUFFWEB/Home
Cheers,
Geoff
On 30/11/2007, at 12:01 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
