jsr372-experts@javaserverfaces-spec-public.java.net

[jsr372-experts] Re: [jsr372-experts mirror] Re: Re: [JAVASERVERFACES-SPEC_PUBLIC-1396] f:socket for SSE and WebSocket PROPOSAL

From: Josh Juneau <juneau001_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:58:22 -0600

Excellent work! I will put this in my queue to blog about soon.

Josh Juneau
juneau001_at_gmail.com
http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com
https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Kito Mann <kito.mann_at_virtua.com> wrote:

> Nice!
>
> ___
>
> Kito D. Mann | @kito99 | Author, JSF in Action
> Web Components, Polymer, JSF, PrimeFaces, Java EE, and Liferay training
> and consulting
> Virtua, Inc. | virtua.tech
> JSFCentral.com | @jsfcentral
> +1 203-998-0403
>
> * Listen to the Enterprise Java Newscast: *http://
> <http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/JSFNewscast/>enterprisejavanews.com
> <http://ww.enterprisejavanews.com>*
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Bauke Scholtz <balusc_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As I wasn't fully satisfied with push scoping, I have further improved
>> f:websocket to support new attribute scope="session" (next to the default
>> of scope="application"). This will make it possible to send the message
>> only to the views in the current HTTP session, without the need to manually
>> mess with channel name. To remember the current HTTP session during
>> actually sending the push message (at that moment, there's not necessarily
>> a HTTP request available), I had to rework PushContext and add a new
>> annotation, @Push. The usage is now like:
>>
>> @Inject @Push
>> private PushContext channelName;
>>
>> public void someAction() {
>> channelName.send(someMessageObject);
>> }
>>
>> Test cases will follow.
>>
>> Cheers, B
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM, manfred riem <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bauke,
>>>
>>> On 1/14/16, 9:34 AM, Bauke Scholtz wrote:
>>>
>>>> I finished f:websocket, see patch in
>>>> https://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-1396
>>>>
>>> Cool!
>>>
>>> No unit tests have been added, this will come later. Existing unit tests
>>>> run without trouble.
>>>>
>>>> I will commit next week in case no one objects.
>>>>
>>> Please make sure when you commit the unit tests are included.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Manfred Riem
>>>
>>>
>>
>