On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Lubor Gajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Don't forget you can add new object scopes to Tapestry. > > The main problem here is not definition of conversation scope, but > specification of conversation boundaries (when the conversation should > start > and when it should end and release all objects associated with conversation > scope). This mechanism should be as simple and user friendly as possible > (all third party implementations I've seen so far are quite verbose in this > point). > > > It doesn't support this feature out-of-the-box, but it was built in such > a > flexible and intelligent way that this can be added as an add-on > > package without rewriting Tapestry itself. You could use page class > transformations to do that, for example. > > I agree that Tapestry is amazingly flexible framework that allows you > modify > it's internal behaviour if you need it. However, I also think that > conversation support is so common requirement (each nontrivial web > application needs it) that it should be supported out-of-the-box. > Couldnt agree more. In fact thats the other main reason that made us go for JSF + SWF combo apart from the client requirement to specify navigation outside the code. > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Em Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:51:33 -0300, Lubor Gajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > escreveu: > > > > Hi Thiago/Geoff, > >> > > > > Hi! > > > > However, when you are using page based approach your flow definition is > >> scattered across whole application > >> and you have to edit and analyze all those hundreds of pages to gather > all > >> information pieces, what is much more time consuming and less user > friendly > >> approach. > >> > > > > There's always the possibility of writing an analyzer using JavaCC or > ANTLR > > or even as a Tapestry service that does what you're describing by looking > at > > @InjectPage annotations. It wouldn't be as complete as a SWF > configuration, > > but I think it would cover most situations. ;) > > > > Moreover, Spring Web Flow is not only about flow definition. Its another > >> important feature is that it introduces new object scopes that allow you > >> easily share objects between pages in the same flow/conversation. How > >> would you implement this in Tapestry? Would you use ASO objects and > manually > >> clean them when flow/conversation ends? Or would you just use 'bucket > >> brigade > >> pattern' and manually set the object to following page instance? Each of > >> these two approaches is less productive and less user friendly than > >> directly using flow/conversation scope. > >> > > > > I would use an ASO and clean up manually. > > > > Don't forget you can add new object scopes to Tapestry. This has been > done > > before, even with conversation scope, even not using Seam or SWF: > > http://www.nabble.com/T5%3A-Persistence-pains-tt17027697.html#a17080018. > > > > Looking at this list archives, some people were trying to integerate Seam > > into Tapestry to provide what you're describing here (conversation > scope). > > > > I completely agree that XML programming is nonsense, but XML flow > >> definition is not the only choice. You can use java based flow > definitions > >> or > >> eventually create your own custom flow builders (for instance grails > >> framework uses SWF with groovy based flow builder). > >> > > > > That's nice. I use Spring, but with JavaConfig, so I almost don't have to > > write XML. > > > > Tapestry is by its concept strictly page based framework and it doesn't > >> support grouping pages to flows/conversations. > >> > > > > It doesn't support this feature out-of-the-box, but it was built in such > a > > flexible and intelligent way that this can be added as an add-on package > > without rewriting Tapestry itself. You could use page class > transformations > > to do that, for example. > > > > I think that this would be > >> good opportunity to start discussion in Tapestry community about > >> advantages/disadvantages of flow/conversation concept to clarify if it > >> would be useful to introduce this concept in future Tapestry releases > or > >> not. So, what do you think? > >> > > > > Discussions are always a good thing. :) > > > > > > -- > > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > > Independent Java consultant, developer, and instructor > > Consultor, desenvolvedor e instrutor em Java > > http://www.arsmachina.com.br/thiago > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- Cheers, John
