tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Filip S. Adamsen (JIRA)" <...@tapestry.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (TAPESTRY-2703) ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
Date Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:22:44 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12636669#action_12636669

Filip S. Adamsen commented on TAPESTRY-2703:

Using an enum is not an option as additional persistence strategies can be contributed.

> ApplicationStateObject is a misleading term
> -------------------------------------------
>                 Key: TAPESTRY-2703
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2703
>             Project: Tapestry
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: tapestry-core
>    Affects Versions: 5.0.15
>            Reporter: Geoff Callender
> This is a record of a discussion that went on in the mailing list on 16-18 Sep 2008.
 I proposed that the term ApplicationStateObject caused confusion.  Some agreed but not all.
 Regardless, the discussion threw up some interesting food for thought, so I've captured it
here for further consideration.
> Here's the e-mail that kicked it off.
> 	From: 	geoff.callender.jumpstart@gmail.com
> 	Subject: 	T5: ApplicationStateObject is misleading
> 	Date: 	16 September 2008 9:06:12 PM
> 	To: 	users@tapestry.apache.org
> We want Tapestry to be as natural as possible for newcomers, so it's important to have
terminology that is not misleading. Right now might be the last chance to tidy some of these
up before T5.0 goes final.
> One term that I believe many people find misleading is ApplicationState.  The problem
is that it implies it will make an object available across the whole application, ie. application-scoped;
which is not its purpose.
> The doco says that ASOs "are unique to an individual user, not shared between users",
which is not quite right, either.  
> The standard usage is to tie an object's scope to that of a web session, so maybe we
should put "session" in the name? Eg.
> 	@SessionScoped
> 	@SessionShared
> 	@ShareAcrossSession
> It is important to understand that the term "session" here is NOT a reference to the
persistence mechanism, but a reference to the scope.
> Alternatively, let's keep it really obvious with this:
> 	@StateObject
> with the understanding that the default persistence strategy is "session".
> What do others think?  Are you happy with ApplicationState?
> Geoff
> The discussion continued on these 2 threads:
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65601/focus=65601
> * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/65638/focus=65638

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org

View raw message