"hkarapuu" wrote : anonymous wrote : No. In my opinion this is not the true semantics of "back". Back is purely navigational, it should not change the underlying state. | | I think there are many equally 'correct' or 'true' semantics for back button. | | Other frameworks saying "back button support" mostly implement the other ('state rollback') semantics. Seam's "back button support" is more like separating the context per browser window, right? | | In practice the state rollback semantics has proven to be extremely valuable. | | Would you be open for discussion about adding that as a configurable alternative? Not really, other frameworks are wrong here (and unperformant). In Seam, you get effect you want to achieve using "state rollback" by instead using nested conversations. It will take a bit of thinking for you to really "get" this. Basically what Seam says is that you should be able to freely back-and-forward through a wizard without "losing" state that you already entered. But at certain well-defined points, you "acquire" state that should be released if you back up out of it. (An example of such a point is adding a new "child" object, or something.) These "well-defined points" are the beginnings of new nested conversations. You need to spend some time thinking it out before you really "feel" this approach. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4060958#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...