[jsr-314-open] [ADMIN] Proposal Faces Managed Bean Annotations For Containers that implement Servlet 2.5 and Beyond

[Dan Allen]

At one time there were criticisms that JSR-299 was not addressing the
problem it set out to solve, which was to create a solid integration between
JSF and EJB through the use of annotations inspired by Seam and similar
initiatives. But to me, the problem is not with JSR-299 but with JSF 2.0 not
acknowleging the solution being proposed in the JSR-299 spec. I've yet to
understand why JSF is trying to define it's own annotations for name-to-bean
mapping when that is the role of JSR-299 (the beans themselves could be EJB
or this "simple bean" whereever that is going to end up living).

I know a lot of effort has gone into creating these managed bean annotations
for JSF 2.0, but that doesn't remove the fact that they are duplicates of
what JSR-299 has. Besides, I really can't see being very productive with the
still limited dependency injection that the managed bean annotations offer.
Having to reference a value expression only in @ManagedProperty seems really
awkward to me (and always has even from JSF 1 days, which is why I always
used Spring).

I'm saying this not to upset anyone but to point out that we need to make
sure that these specs actually look they considered one another. And why is
it such a big deal that JSF 2 rely on Java EE 6? How long are we really
talking about in the grand scheme of things? People have waited so long for
JSF 2 that we might as well get the best integration we can rather than
fudge and confuse users as to when they can use what parts.

-Dan

-- 
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action

http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan

NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters.  Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20090403/04398e83/attachment.html