shale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Spencer <pau...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [dialog] Missing requirements?
Date Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:24:29 GMT
Craig McClanahan wrote:
> On 8/28/06, Paul Spencer <paulsp@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Should the following be added as a requirements:
>>
>> o A managed bean can be populated by one or more action and views solely
>> via
>>    configuration.  The use of the dialog API by the user's application is
>> not needed.
>>    Said another way, an existing JSF Bean and view, view.jsp, can be
>> broken up into
>>    a dialog by configuring the dialog and breaking apart view.jsp into
>> many
>>    jsp files.
>>    (Currently this is possible when using session managed beans.)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure how to articulate this as a requirement.  Woutd it be
> sufficient to say "You should be able to utilize the dialog functionality
> WITHOUT being required to use the provided state storage mechanism (i.e. #{
> dialog.data.foo}), as long as the application manages this state itself" or
> something like that?.  If so, I think that might be a reasonable 
> requirement
> to add -- although in practice I'm having a hard time figuring out how a
> dialog framework could make this NOT work.
>

Like you, I am not real sure about the wording.  Although I do not agree with
the phrase "as long as the application manages this state itself."  My intent
is for the states and transitions to be configurable and managed by the Shale
Dialog manager.  We may be "splitting hairs" on the wording, If so I will leave
the wording to your discretion.

<snip>

Paul Spencer

Mime
View raw message