SWF / MVC write-up

[Cantor, Scott]

On 9/4/13 11:46 AM, "Tom Zeller" <tzeller at dragonacea.biz> wrote:
>>
>> I think we obviously need to discuss and reinforce or change the
>>original
>> design choice, and then decide what we need to build as a result.
>
>What do you mean by original design choice ?
>
>I think you mean not serializing (supporting clustering) within a flow.

Yes. My recollection was that the decision was made (without much input
from me) because of the need to retrofit a lot of code, and because of the
burden it would impose on being able to add useful things to the tree
based on functional need and not with an eye on the ability to serialize
it efficiently.

I do know that we considered it a key issue at the time and it was
probably the major factor in deciding how to proceed with the design.

*If* it's just a matter of implementing essentially our own in-memory
lookup of the conversations so that the container session isn't involved,
then I don't think it's a lot of code to write. And the implications were
understood, it means you have to do sticky load balancing, as is required
today in many cases.

But the SWF code is pretty convoluted and it was hard to tell from reading
it whether overriding the ConversationManager is really the only change
needed.

-- Scott

PS. On a good note, the fall-through to JSP from Velocity works. I don't
know why it didn't seem to work when I tried it, I did the same things. So
we don't have to predefine the tempates we use. I'll update my page.