Details
-
Improvement
-
Status: Closed
-
Major
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
None
-
None
-
None
Description
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:
Attachments
Issue Links
- is related to
-
-
- Closed
-