---- Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Hi! > > Hmmm... I agree that "flash" can be misleading, but "access" doesn't seem > > very descriptive to me. I think "page" or "view" might be more appropriate. > > > As it is currently in Orchestra, the fomer flash-scope is exactly an > access-scope. As long as the bean is accessed it stay alive, regardles > of the page it is used on. > > page or view are different scopes where one assumes that the bean > vanishes as soon as another page is navigated to even if a conversation > with the same name will be used here. > We can discuss if such a scope makes sense for Orchestra .... I guess not.
I quite like the idea of a view scope, where the conversation always terminates when the view changes. But as noted, that is not what "access" scope (formerly flash scope) does. An access scope does behave like "view" if the beans configured in that conversation are not referenced from any other page. But if the same beans are referenced from two pages A and B that have a navigation rule connecting them, then it acts more like tomahawk's t:saveState. The benefit of having a "view" scope available too is that referencing the same bean-name from multiple pages would definitely not share the data, which could be nice in some cases. It also seems to document more clearly the purpose of a bean; declaring it as "view" scope tells readers exactly what is expected - that it lives only while that page is being viewed. Regards, Simon
