[jsr-314-open] Pre-JCP filed draft of JSF 2.2 JSR

[Kito Mann]

>
>
>  SK>  Also, do we need to open a new JSR for a JSF 2.x Portlet Bridge?  I
>> see
>> SK>  you have referred to the existing JSR 329 which was written for JSF
>> 1.2.
>>
>> Personally, I think we do need to open up such a JSR, and having IBM's
>> support for such a JSR would be very helpful.  However, what *I'm*
>> trying to establish is support for a new JSR for JSF.  A portlet JSR is
>> another matter entirely.
>>
>
> Opening a JSR for the Portlet 2.0 Bridge for JSF 2.0 is currently being
> looked at.  However, as JSF 2.0 has already been out for some time, its
> currently felt we would better support the community by publishing a stable,
> working implementation of such a bridge based on logical
> extensions/migration of JSR 329 before getting into the thick of the JSR
> process which tends to be more methodical.  To that end there is now a 3.0.x
> Trunk in svn of the Apache MyFaces PortletBridge project (where the JSR RI
> work is):
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/portlet-bridge/core/trunk_3.0.x .
>  This code is stable enough for an alpha release in that it passes the
> upgraded version of the 329 TCK and runs the various Ajax and
> CompositeComponent samples I could find on the web/in Mojarra.  I will be
> doing an official (alpha) release shortly once I have clearance.  But in the
> meantime, interested parties can build/use it directly from this repository.
>  FYI ... anyone wanting to do so may want to contact me as I have found bugs
> in both Mojarra and MyFaces that prevent proper execution in a portlet
> environment.  I can suggest/provide various patches to get around these
> problems.
>

It's probably worthwhile bringing Wesley Hales (JBoss Portlet Bridge) and
Neil Griffin (portletfaces bridge) about this; I believe they both support
JSF 2 currently, but I'm not sure if they're using standard extension points
or not.

>
> Finally, since the question was asked here -- when proposed the Bridge JSR
> a few years ago there was a discussion on whether it needed to be separated
> from JSF or not.  At the time we argued that it should be because the
> nuances of the portlet environment needed the focus of that community more
> than the JSF community.  Now that the core of the bridge have been defined,
> standardized, and proven to work in practice, its useful to revisit this
> question.  Given that the underlying portlet spec is both stable and
> unlikely to change in the near or medium future, it seems that the bridge is
> now pretty much only tied to future JSF enhancements.  Is it time to tie
> this work closer to the JSF standards work?  If so, what form do you think
> this should take?
>

Given how slowly this process moves, I think it probably makes sense to keep
them separate, personally. We never get through all of the things we'd like
to for JSF all by itself..

-- Kito

   -Mike-
>
>  Ed
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20110225/f92dca5a/attachment-0002.html