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

[Kito Mann]

I think the major point here is that you should be able to write a  
real JSF app without any other libraries. We are so close to that with  
JSF 2 -- the only thing missing is conversation scope.  (Managed beans  
are not very powerful, but they're good enough for some cases).

Furthermore, the dependency on JSP 2.1 really hurt JSF, and if we go  
down that road again, I think it's really going to hurt adoption  
again. I'm not at all convinced that the Java EE vendors won't take  
another 1-2 years to implement Java EE 6. Also, so far we've been  
telling everyone this will run on Java EE 5.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.jsfcentral.com
http://www.Virtua.com


On Apr 5, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at REDHAT.COM> wrote:

> 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/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://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete