Hi,
As requested in the closed issue, I've created the following smaller issues:
*
https://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-1405 -
State saving per pattern
*
https://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-1406 -
Unify "none" with "server" and "client"
*
https://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-1407 -
State options for @Viewscoped
Thoughts?
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:31 PM, manfred riem <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have closed the issue as "Incomplete" as the scope as currently stated is
> too broad.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kind regards,
> Manfred Riem
>
> On 9/1/15, 1:04 PM, arjan tijms wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't really think this issue is too broad. "Improve state" would
>> maybe be, but this issue actually just asks to make the state mode
>> setting more flexible. It's now only a global setting, and the issue
>> asks to give extra options, such as the ability to set it for a URL
>> pattern (with the single view being an example of such pattern).
>>
>> The context is that "state" is one of the most complained about
>> aspects of JSF. Sometimes this seems justified, sometimes maybe not
>> entirely. Too often people seem to think of terms of "state is bad,
>> stateless is good", and following that: "JSF has state, so JSF is
>> bad".
>>
>> While *that* is a really broad issue, although one that would be great
>> to discuss separately, 1056 is really a rather narrow aspect of this
>> larger topic.
>>
>> Sure, it can be split into even smaller things like:
>>
>> * Set state save mode per view
>> * Set state save mode per pattern
>> * Unify pseudo state save mode "none" (stateless) with modes "server"
>> and "client"
>> * Make it possible to set "none" globally as well
>>
>> Still, I think just splitting up in separate issues without any
>> context may not necessarily improve matters.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Arjan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:39 PM, manfred riem<manfred.riem_at_oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> While I understand the general question behind this particular issue I
>>> would
>>> like to close it as "Won't fix" as it is too broad.
>>>
>>> I would recommend that if we take action in this area we should come up
>>> with
>>> more narrowly defined issues.
>>>
>>> Please response before 9/8.
>>>
>>> If no objections, I will take the action mentioned above.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Manfred Riem
>>>
>