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

[Jason Lee]

I'm with Kito.  One of the main things I've been pitching is the
(near) total lack of XML for most use cases, and that's made a lot of
people really excited about the new spec.  I'd rather see something
now and then have to determine some sort of migration strategy later
for those wishing to leverage the EE 6 managed bean facility (or
JSR-299).  Furthermore, I think Kito's exactly right on the issue of
depending on EE6 for JSF 2.  I think the EE5 dependence really hurt
1.2's adoption, and history has shown that vendors are slow to reach
compatibility (one vendor just release an EE5-compliant container
laster fall!).  If our goal is to hamstring JSF2's adoption, EE6
dependence is the best way to do it. :)  Personally, I plan on
updating my GlassFish v2 installations to JSF 2 as soon as possible,
if it remains possible. :P

On Apr 5, 2009, at 7:28 AM, Kito Mann wrote:

> 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

Jason Lee, SCJP
Senior Java Developer, Sun Microsystems
Mojarra and Mojarra Scales Dev Team
https://mojarra.dev.java.net
https://scales.dev.java.net
http://blogs.steeplesoft.com