Is this a problem with the spec or its implementation? For example "@ConversationScoped beans are not allowed to be touched from different requests". CDI is that specific?
Regards, Alan On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Hi! > > Consider you have a registration form where name, login and password are > mandatory and all others are optional. > > If a user doesn't fill any of the mandatory fields, JSF will return to the > view without even invoking any of your actions. > > But if it doesn't call your action, then you also cannot make the > @ConversationScoped backing bean longRunning... > Same is true if conversion errors exist, e.g. a user enters a wrong date > format. > > > This happens more often than you think. And in all those cases a CDI > @ConversationScoped bean doesn't work. > Also there are problems with conversation propagation across GET links. This > basically doesn't work at all. > > The next issue is that @ConversationScoped beans are not allowed to be > touched from different requests. This is broken in > > a.) AJAX requests > b.) if you do a redirect. Because the 'new' (target where you redirected to) > request might come back to your server even before the original request is > finished. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: >> Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 12:50 AM >> Subject: Re: Custom Context utilities >> >> I understand most of what the relevant slides discuss. >> >> What is does "failed conversion/validation" mean? Is this the bit >> where all the type information is collected and validated? >> >> >> Regards, >> Alan >> >> >> >> On Apr 3, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Gerhard Petracek wrote: >> >>> hi alan, >>> >>> see e.g. [1] >>> >>> regards, >>> gerhard >>> >>> [1] http://s.apache.org/tj >>> >>> >>> >>> 2012/4/4 Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 3, 2012, at 6:17 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure if the CDI Conversation scope is a good example as >> it is >>>> widely considered pretty much broken ;) >>>> >>>> Can you provide background on your opinion for those of us who have >> come
