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

[Stephen Kenna]

Thanks for the explanation Mike.  I believe that 'remote components' is a 
worthwhile goal to put into 2.2.  I will inform our Portal/Portlet 
Container team so we can get as many eyes looking at this new section as 
possible. 

Kito, 
Thanks for pulling in Neil and Wesley. 

I think it still makes sense to keep the JSF spec and the Portlet bridge 
spec separate.  I just think that we should make sure we produce, at the 
very least, a MR for the bridge for any new content in JSF that affects 
it.  I also think a future bridge spec should have its own version instead 
of using the current version of JSF and Portlet in its title.  Ed's 
inclusion of a JSF 1.2 bridge spec could be seen as confusing. 


Regards,
Stephen


stephen kenna                                           ibm websphere 
architecture & development
websphere platform web tier lead architect and jsf eg member  |  address: 
4205 s miami blvd, durham, nc 27703 | office: m215/503
email: kenna at us.ibm.com  |  phone: (919) 543-5593  |  t/l: 441-5593  |  
mobile: (919) 454-1231  |  fax: (919) 254-5250



From:
Kito Mann <kito.mann at virtua.com>
To:
jsr-314-open at jcp.org
Cc:
Neil Griffin <neil.griffin at tritonsvc.com>, Wesley Hales 
<whales at redhat.com>
Date:
02/25/2011 12:21 PM
Subject:
Re: [jsr-314-open] Pre-JCP filed draft of JSF 2.2 JSR
Sent by:
jsr-314-open-bounces at jcp.org




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/20110227/f167d8bb/attachment-0002.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 4542 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20110227/f167d8bb/attachment-0002.gif