4:22 a.m.
a.)+1 UEL is nowadays not exclusively bound to JSF nor JSP anymore.
And we must be careful with 'Servlets' and 'Servlet Specification'
We all here know that JSF and JSP are also only 'Servlets' (as Wicket and Seam2
are, etc), but most people think about 'Servlets' only as their self-written stuff
and often forget about the DefaultServlet and FacersSerlet also being Servlets of course.
So we might go even further with the formulation?
1.2.6. Relationship to Servlet based Frameworks like JSF and JSP
This
specification allows any bean to be assigned a Unified-EL name. Thus,
any technology that uses Unified EL - like JavaServerFaces or JavaServerPages - can
use beans managed by CDI.
The only part of CDI which is atm really bound to JSF is the @ConversationScoped. This
needs some rework I guess.
b.) CDI and EJB
I think the old wording was a tribute to some political facts back then when the spec
evolved.
The option to make CDI also applicable for SE also was long time 'prohibited' ;)
I think we got past this point since CDI-1.0 was a huge success so far.
It's now clear that not EJB but parts which got extracted from EJB are really
important. Do we already have an explicit wording that any CDI container need to fully
implement the interceptors-spec which is 'part' of the EJB-3.1 JSR?
LieGrue,
strub
________________________________
From: Rick Hightower <richardhightower(a)gmail.com>
To: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)
1.2.6. Relationship to JSF
JavaServer Faces is a web-tier presentation framework that provides a component model for
graphical user interface components and an event-driven interaction model that binds user
interface components to objects accessible via Unified EL.
This specification allows any bean to be assigned a Unified EL name. Thus, a JSF
application may take advantage of the sophisticated context and dependency injection model
defined by this specification.
Could this section really be called relationship to Servlets and JSP?
Unified EL is not really part of JSF or JSP.
My recollection is that you can use CDI managed beans from Universal EL from JSPs.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7385723/cdi-injection-in-a-jsp
Thus, you could use it with any framework. Why is there no section on relationship with
JSP and Servlets....
What we are really talking about is relationship with Unified EL.
Anyway... I find the CDI doc implies strong coupling with EJB and JSF that just does not
exist in any version of CDI for the most part and certainly much less so with CDI 1.1.
I would reword as follows.... (flawed but closer)
1.2.6. Relationship to JSF, Servlets and JSP
If you use a framework like JavaServer Faces that uses the Unified EL, then it will work
with this specification.
This specification allows any bean to be assigned a Unified EL name. Thus, any technology
that uses Unified EL, JSP, in a supported container can use beans managed by CDI.
It is rough and perhaps not 100% accurate, but closer to what we have now.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Rick Hightower <richardhightower(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Word on the JavaOne street....
>
>
>
>
>Section 1.2.3
>
>
>The Managed Beans specification defines the basic programming model for application
components managed by the Java EE container.
>As defined by this specification, most Java classes, including all JavaBeans, are
managed beans. This specification defines contextual lifecycle management and dependency
injection as generic services applicable to all....
>
>
>My understanding is that these are going away, and it is just CDI for Java EE 7 for
JSF managed beans.
>Pretty sure I heard Arun Gupta say something like that in the tweetersphere during
JavaOne.....
>
>
>If this is true, we should reword or delete this. Not sure exactly.. But it seems like
something needs to be here to say that JSF Managed Beans are deprecated for CDI going
forward (if that is in fact true).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/ContextsAndDependencyInjection11EarlyDraftSubmitted
>>_______________________________________________
>>cdi-dev mailing list
>>cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Rick Hightower
>(415) 968-9037
>Profile
>
>
--
Rick Hightower
(415) 968-9037
Profile
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev