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

[Simon Lessard]

Hi all,
 
Call me an old geezer with resistance to change, but I do have some worries even then ;). Assuming we drop @ManagedBean and @ManagedProperty, we'll still support XML defined managed beans while someone could argue that this is also overlapping with JSR-299's beans.xml, no? On the other hand, it does save some processing time at deployment and development time (to create the annotation scanner) to not have them.
 
So if I understand correctly, we're simply arguing over:
1. Provide one less feature in JSF 2.0 out-of-the-box, but suggesting JSR-299 alternative. If the users want it badly then they can wait for it to be released (hopefully before JEE 6 and not dependent on any part of it other than JSF 2.0).
 
2. Do some more work on our side that will be useless for JSR-299 users (and most likely Spring-JSF users as well for that matter) and marginaly useful for the other.
 
Do I get it all right? If so, I guess I could retract myself, it's not such a big deal.
 
 
Regards,
 
~ Simon 

________________________________

From: JSR 314 Open Mailing list on behalf of Pete Muir
Sent: Sat 4/4/2009 2:42 PM
To: JSR-314-OPEN at JCP.ORG
Subject: Re: [jsr-314-open] [ADMIN] Proposal Faces Managed Bean Annotations For Containers that implement Servlet 2.5 and Beyond



Simon et. al.

I'm specifically avoiding (for the obvious reason that I am extremely 
biased) taking a stance here, however I would like to emphasize, that, 
although the JSR-299 spec is tied to Java EE, there are 
implementations that run (or intend to run) in pretty much any 
environment:

* the RI currently runs in JBoss, GlassFish, Tomcat and plain Java SE
* I know from talking to people from the Apache OpenWebBeans team that 
they have similar goals in terms of targets (and have actually been 
concentrating on servlet containers for now).

On 4 Apr 2009, at 19:24, Simon Lessard wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> No offense taken although I'm going to remove my EG member hat to 
> answer that from personal point of view only, not involving Fujitsu's.
>
> Firstly, from my experience and the conferences I've given, JSR-299 
> is not what I would call a rock star in people mind. In fact, I feel 
> that it may be extremely unpopular. That status started a short 
> thread in the past where Kito proposed that JSF provides its own 
> conversation scope in case 299 didn't live up to the expectation 
> and, to be honest, I kind of agree with him. I would have liked a 
> page flow scope at least out-of-the-box in JSF for wizard based 
> applications. So, my first reason is I don't think people will use 
> JSR-299 much (at least at first), while, as you mentioned, JSF 2.0 
> is probably one of the most awaited spec of JEE 6 (if not the most).
>
> Secondly, depending on JEE 6 means that people won't be able to run 
> JSF 2.0 outside JEE 6 application servers, placing us in the same 
> situation as with JSF 1.2's dependency on JSP 2.1, meaning JSF 2.0 
> won't be used for about 2 years from now which is not an incredibly 
> interesting marketing statement considering all the most needed 
> improvements (especially with interoperability) that 2.0 brings.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: JSR 314 Open Mailing list on behalf of Dan Allen
> Sent: Fri 4/3/2009 3:30 PM
> To: JSR-314-OPEN at JCP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Proposal Faces Managed Bean Annotations For 
> Containers that implement Servlet 2.5 and Beyond
>
>
> 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/>  <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.

--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org <http://www.seamframework.org/> 
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete