[jsr-314-open] Metadata complete jar files
by Andy Schwartz
Gang -
Section 11.5.1 of the spec defines the following annotation scanning
behavior:
> Requirements for scanning of classes for annotations
> * If the <faces-config> element in the WEB-INF/faces-config.xml file
> contains metadata-complete attribute whose value is “true”, the
> implementation must not perform annotation scanning on any classes
> except for those classes provided by the implementation itself.
> Otherwise, continue as follows.
> * If the runtime discovers a conflict between an entry in the
> Application Configuration Resources and an annotation, the entry in
> the Application Configuration Resources takes precedence.
> * All classes in WEB-INF/classes must be scanned.
> * For every jar in the application's WEB-INF/lib directory, if the jar
> contains a “META-INF/faces-config.xml” file or a file that matches the
> regular expression “.*\.faces-config.xml” (even an empty one), all
> classes in that jar must be scanned.
Since application developers have the ability to disable annotation
scanning at a global level, this means that any component set that wants
to support this mode would need to provide a metadata complete
faces-config.xml file. I don't think this is a hardship for most
component vendors, since presumably component vendors are going to want
to provide design-time metadata (eg. JSR-276 metadata), which, for the
moment, requires a faces-config.xml file anyway.
A question that came up here is whether we can tweak section 11.5.1 to
accommodate metadata complete jar files. That is, can we specify that
any jar that contains a faces-config.xml with a metadata-complete="true"
attribute would not be scanned? This would allow component vendors to
indicate that their jar files are metadata complete, and thus avoid the
cost of annotation scanning for the contents of the jar.
Note that while the annotation scan is typically a one time hit (during
application startup), design-time tools may end up starting/stopping JSF
repeatedly during the development process. Thus, avoiding unnecessary
scanning should provide for a more efficient development experience.
Any thoughts on whether we could/should make this change? Does anyone
know of reasons why we avoided specifying this originally?
Also - if we agree to make this change, is this small enough that we
could get this into the the next MR?
Andy
13 years, 8 months
[jsr-314-open] ADMIN: Final list of issues for JSF 2.0 and actions for each
by Ed Burns
This is the final list of issues for JSF 2.0. No other issues will be
considered for 2.0.
I do not think content of any of these issues, nor their quantity,
warrant another Proposed Final Draft, but I will of course produce an
Editor's Draft for the public on jsr-314-open to review.
I will send another email with the dates for the remainder of JSR-314.
Any further discussion on any topic sent to this list will be rolled
into the next release of the spec.
SECTION: List of EG Members from whom I have obtained explicit buy-in
I have obtained explicit buy in for this list in its present state from
the following EG members.
Pete Muir Status: DONE, but need final official answer from JBoss. Promised by 1800 EDT 20090415.
Andy Schwartz 617 794 7974 Status: DONE Spoke with him 1319 20090415
Kito Mann 917 848 3359 Status: DONE Spoke with him 1600 20090415
Martin Marinschek +43 699 1805 3906 Status: DONE Spoke with him at 1400 EDT 20090415
Ken Paulsen x42083 Status DONE Spoke with him 1403 20090415
Alexandr Smirnov DONE IRC chat with him 16:00 20090415
SECTION: Issue sums
Number of issues remaining: 30
I've broken down the issues into two groups, bigger and smaller. I
assert that we do not need to do a PFD2 because none of the issues are
so big as to warrant such an action.
Bigger issues:
Number of bigger issues: 16
deferred: 5
will fix: 10
pushed to EG member requesting the issue: 1
Smaller issues:
Number of smaller issues: 14
deferred: 1
will fix: 13
SECTION: Bigger issues
PM> ISSUE: 1) Fully stateless views. This is a performance optimization
PM> which is ideal for the use case of pages which are output-only (no
PM> form). This is moderately complex to get right, and a blocker in our
PM> opinion. This also has the support of Apache.
We see two aspects to consider.
a. Marking specific views in an app as stateless. Putting a
transient="true" attribute on <f:view> doesn't work here because the
template page with <f:view> can be shared across pages.
There are several options we could try but none of them are feasible at
this point in time.
b. If the Form Renderer never calls StateManager.writeState(), and the
ViewHandler is aware of this fact, then you have a stateless view.
Therefore, statelessness is an implementation detail. Adam Winer
provided this idea, which we implement in Mojarra.
ACTION: Defer to a later release.
EB> Pete agrees to defer, but Gavin does not.
EB> Andy agrees to defer.
EB> Ken agrees to defer.
EB> Martin agrees to defer.
EB> Kito agrees to defer
EB> Alexandr, agrees to defer, but is unhappy about it.
PM> ISSUE: 3) Better handling of whitespace in facelets. Currently
PM> whitespace in view sources can get "eaten" and you have to resort to
PM> tricks like to add space. I would put this as a critical and
PM> the (spec) complexity as low (simply switch it on/off).
ACTION: Defer to a later release.
EB> Pete says, "70 - yes, defering that is fine"
EB> Andy is ok for deferring this
EB> Ken is ok to defer.
EB> Martin agrees to defer. Not a spec issue.
EB> Kito agrees to defer.
EB> Alexandr, agrees to defer
PM> ISSUE: 2) First class support for page actions. This allows a more
PM> action orientated approach (Struts style) approach to page
PM> authoring, where some arbirtrary method can be run when the page is
PM> accessed. Use cases include security (redirect to another page if
PM> the user isn't logged in for example). JSF2 currently includes
PM> "second class" support - it's possible to do this stuff, but not in
PM> simple fashion. As the design for this has already been done, and
PM> reviewed/approved by the EG, the complexity is low. I would put this
PM> as a blocker. It also has the support of Oracle.
Pete, when we had the discussion regarding View Parameters, we decided
to defer Page Actions to a later release. We will not reverse that
decision.
ACTION: Defer to a later release.
EB> Pete says "I am happy for this to slip, given you can do a
EB> workaround with events. l know Dan is unhappy with the current
EB> state. On this one, Gavin was wavering, and would probably be happy
EB> to slip it".
EB> Andy can accept deferral for this
EB> Ken says, "Events should be able to accommodate this use case until
EB> we have a chance to improve the user-experience in a later release.
EB> I think we should defer this.
EB> Martin says ok to defer. But Ed and Martin agree that we should
EB> have a {Pre,Post}BuildViewEvent that is published appropriately.
EB> Kito agrees to defer.
EB> Alexandr, agrees to defer
PM> ISSUE: 5) make behaviour of new components more consistent -
PM> currently f:validateBean (JSR-303 support) / f:ajax use different
PM> strategies to mark areas of the areas of the page to enable. Align
PM> these. This is a blocker (once it is written in stone we can't go
PM> back and fix it) and complexity low (the EG has agreed on the
PM> correct design, so the language needs tweaking in the spec and
PM> javadoc). This has the support of Oracle.
ACTION: If the EG agrees that the default validator setup currently hard
coded into UIInput.encodeEnd() can be moved into
Application.createComponent(), this can be done.
EB> Pete agrees with the plan on this.
EB> Andy agrees with the plan on this.
EB> Ken agrees with the plan on this.
EB> Martin agrees with the plan on this.
EB> Kito agrees with the plan on this.
EB> Alexandr agrees with the plan, but thinks the tag handler is a
EB> better place to imbue the component with the default validator.
PM> ISSUE: 7) Allow multiple error messages for a component to be
PM> displayed - especially useful for JSR-303 support. This is
PM> complexity low, and priority minor (easy for an addon to fix).
ACTION: Pete, please submit a diff patch modifying the following files:
standard-html-renderkit-base.xml jsf-api/doc/standard-html-renderkit-base.xml
message-message-props.xml jsf-api/doc/message-message-props.xml
to specify the change, and the necessary implementation changes for this
feature.
For to the patch to be accepted at this VERY late date it must meet the
following requirements. Because of the late timing of this feature
request we will be unable to accept the feature if the patch doesn't
meet all of the following requirements.
* All existing automated tests still run successfully after applying the patch.
* The spec wording in the patch requires no grammatical or formatting
changes.
* The patch is sent to the EG list no later than 23:59 EDT Wednesday
20090415.
RL> ISSUE: 2. View ID Derivation Fix
RL> (java.net Issue 1002)
RL> Status: Ed had a fix - push back from Ken Paulsen on the fix;
ACTION: Because this breaks the V3 Admin GUI, it must be fixed for 2.0
=> edburns fix by Thursday 20090316 17:00 EDT.
RL> ISSUE: 3. Client Behavior in Composite Components
RL> (patch from Exadel)
RL> Status: Patch 1 checked in; Patch 2 checked in;
RL> Javadocs / prose updates need to be made.
ACTION: Fix checked in to revision 6952, will review spec implications
RL> ISSUE: 4. Bean Validation Bug Fixes
RL> (java.net issue 1058)
RL> Status: Checked in; Needs discussion; Javadocs, prose updates
ACTION: Will review docs, RELEASE_PENDING. Make sure spec for
CompositeComponent Attributes ELResolver mentions this, 5.6.2.2
JD> ISSUE: Impl 1071: UIData.visitTree()
ACTION: Will Fix. fully specify
JD> ISSUE: Impl 1072: Facelet Meta* Javadocs not cleanroom implementable
ACTION: Will fix.
EG> ISSUE: JavaScript disabled support [Was: Outcome of JSFDays
EG> discussions]
ACTION: This can easily be doable in a later release. Considering the
late date of this request we need to defer it.
EB> Pete is ok with deferring this.
EB> Andy is ok with deferring this.
EB> Ken is ok to defer.
EB> Martin is ok with defer
EB> Kito agrees to defer.
EB> Alexandr agrees to defer.
EG> ISSUE: minor feature enhancement for Facelets/VDL
ACTION: Defer to a later release
EB> Pete's ok with deferring this.
EB> Andy's ok with deferring this.
EB> Ken is ok to defer.
EB> Martin ok to defer.
EB> Kito ok to defer.
EB> Alexandr is ok to defer.
EG> ISSUE: required attributes in composite components
ACTION: Defer to a later release
EB> Pete's ok with deferring this.
EB> Andy's ok with deferring this.
EB> Ken is ok to defer this.
EB> Martin is ok to defer this.
EB> Kito ok to defer this.
EB> Alexandr, agrees to defer
EG> ISSUE: remove target attr from h:outputStylesheet (was:
EG> h:outputStylesheetdocs need to be updated)
ACTION: Will fix this
EG> ISSUE: #{compositeComponent.attrs....} verbosity
ACTION: Change "compositeComponent" to be "cc". Implementations may
provide a context-param that allows renaming the implicit object name to
an arbitrary value for the case where an app happens to have a
managed-bean named cc.
EB> Pete says he won't object to this solution.
EB> Andy is ok with this action
EB> Ken says, "I like 'cc' better to solve the verbosity issue. I
EB> recommend deferring on the renaming via context-param for now -- but
EB> would not object to it making the release if others feel strongly
EB> that it needs to be done now."
EB> Martin is ok with this solution.
EB> Kito is ok with this solution.
EB> Alexandr is ok to defer.
EG> ISSUE: composite insert children
ACTION: 2 days. Take the following steps
EB> Pete is ok with this action.
EB> Andy is ok with this action.
Ken says,
KP> I am very nervous about the reparenting (insert*) commands. If 2
KP> composite:insertFacet/Children tags are used in the same composite
KP> component, it will likely fail. Is that acceptable?
EB> We will specify that if multiple <composite:insertFacet> elements
EB> exist with the same name in the <composite:implementation> section,
EB> the "last one wins".
EB> We will specify that if multiple <composite:insertChildren> elements
EB> exist in the <composite:implementation> section the facelet layer
EB> must throw a FaceletException.
KP> If the component inserted has code which does: getParent(), they'll
KP> be exposed to the internal workings of a composite component (which
KP> they shouldn't know exists).
Yes, you are correct, but I feel this is sufficiently corner case to
ignore.
KP> I would prefer render* in most cases. In cases where this isn't
KP> possible (implementing a facet inside a composite component),
KP> perhaps we can do a proxy component which can be added to the inner
KP> facet and delegate rendering to the page-facet? I think there will
KP> be problems with this implementation. If I am wrong, then I do not
KP> object to this going in -- otherwise, I think it should be deferred.
EB> Martin is ok with this action.
EB> Alexandr is ok with this action.
1. rename composite:insertFacet to composite:renderFacet
2. create composite:insertFacet that reparents the named facet from the
top level component to be a facet child of the parent tag in the
composite:implementation section in which the composite:insertFacet
resides.
3. delete composite:renderUsingPageChildren
4. create composite:insertChildren that reparents the children from the
top level component to the parent of tag in the composite:implementation
section in which the composite:insertChildren resides.
5. For composite:insert{Facet,Children} support nested composite
components.
=> edburns take this to Bill and see what he thinks, if we need to do a
PFD2.
SECTION: Smaller issues
PM> ISSUE: 6) Better support for timezones. Currently only one of two
PM> timezones can be used - default or system. The user may well be in
PM> some other timezone entirely, so make the timezone used
PM> configurable. This is a critical issue, and the complexity is medium
PM> (but we have a full proposal for this waiting in the wings that
PM> didn't make it due to time constraints)
If this was a truly critical issue, it would have been brought up a long
time ago, not after the PFD has been published. Furthermore, this is a
platform level thing. I direct you to your JSR-316 EG rep for this feature.
ACTION: Defer to later release.
EB> Pete is ok with deferring this.
EB> Andy is ok with deferring this.
EB> Ken says defer.
EB> Martin ok to defer.
EB> Kito ok to defer.
EB> Alexandr is ok to defer
RL> ISSUE: 2. 11.4.7 - Absolute ordering. I think if a document name
RL> is explicitly referenced but not present, an exception should be
RL> thrown.
ACTION: We'll log a message in this case.
EB> Pete's ok with this action.
EB> Andy's ok with this action.
EB> Ken's ok with this action.
EB> Martin is ok with this action.
EB> Kito is ok with this action
EB> Alexandr states, "if related document was not present, it is
critical error, therefore Exception should be thrown." Given the
prevailing opinion, we'll stick with logging.
RL> ISSUE: 3. FacesRenderKit annotation hasn't existed from some time
RL> now.
ACTION: Remove this from the spec.
RL> ISSUE: 4. Javadocs for EditableValueHolder.addValidator() and
RL> ValueHolder.setConverter() mention ResourceDependency annotation
RL> processing. This documentation should be moved to
RL> Application.createConverter() and Application.createValidator().
ACTION: Will fix this in the spec.
RL> ISSUE: 5. 3.1.11 mentions that the AttributesMap, if the current
RL> component is composite, must eval any ValueExpressions stored in the
RL> Map. This is incorrect. This logic is handled by the
RL> CompositeComponentAttributesELResolver
ACTION: Will fix in the spec.
RL> ISSUE: 6. Preface references META-INF/managed-beans.xml. Support
RL> for this file is no longer required.
ACTION: Will fix.
RL> ISSUE: 7. 5.6.2.2 Doesn't mention any support for the special
RL> parent keyword in #{compositeComponent} expressions.
ACTION: Will fix.
RL> ISSUE: 8. 6.1.1.15 lists Flash as a property of FacesContext. It's
RL> now a property of ExternalContext.
ACTION: Will fix.
RL> ISSUE: 9. 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 Typo in assertion marker
RL> 'defualtActionListener' and 'defualtRenderKit' There may be others.
ACTION: Will fix
RL> ISSUE: 10. 7.4.2 will need to be discussed due to the
RL> implementation of issue 1066.
ACTION: Will fix
RL> ISSUE: 11. 7.4.3 should include a navigation case example with
RL> redirect parameters.
ACTION: Will fix
RL> ISSUE: 7.5.1 and others. This may already be done, but
RL> PageDeclarationLanguage should be ViewDeclarationLanguage
ACTION: Will fix. Make sure retargetAttachedObjects and retargetMethodExpressions are on VDL, not ViewHandler.
RL> ISSUE: 1. Spec ResponseWriter methods: startCDATA endCDATA (java.net
RL> issue 1055) Status: impl done; method javadocs / prose need to be
RL> done;
ACTION: Will fix
EG> ISSUE: View and custom scoped eager managed beans?
ACTION: Will Fix. Add eager for session scoped managed beans
RL> Update 3rd bullet in 11.5.1 so that pattern for custom faces config file
names is something that ends with .faces-config.xml. This brings it in
alignment with 11.4.
--
14 years, 6 months
[jsr-314-open] Spec-Issue https://javaserverfaces.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1408
by Martin Marinschek
Hi,
I just ran into a new issue with 2.0: a condition-change in the test
attribute of a c:if in invoke-application doesn't lead to a changed
component tree, as the tag-handlers are not reevaluated before render
response.
In Facelets old, they were evaluated --> therefore, this is a
backwards compatibility issue.
That now is really a show-stopper for us with regards to 2.0 - the
first real one we encounter.
regards,
Martin
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
15 years
[jsr-314-open] meetings at JSF Summit
by Dan Allen
Fellow EG members,
I'm hoping that we can find an opportunity during the JSF summit to
sit down and have a formal meeting to go through some of the agenda
items here:
http://wiki.jcp.org/wiki/index.php?page=JSF+Summit+09
Of course, I expect there to be plenty of informal discussions, so
keep that list handy on your smartphones ;) But for thoroughness, we
should have at least one formal sit down. This would also give members
of the EG that are not attending the summit an opportunity to join in.
So perhaps we can set up a conference call for those that are not
there in person.
Looking at the schedule, we could do the meeting right after the
expert panel discussion. That way, we will have had some informal
discussions, plus issues that come up during that panel can be further
discussed, if need be.
Wed, Dec 2, 8:30pm
(An alternate choice is Thur, Dec 3, 7:30, if you think Wed is long
enough as it is)
When we sit down, we want to be sure to have a designated secretary to
take meeting minutes.
It's not often that so many of us can be together at once and we want
to seize this moment to set our course for the future. How appropriate
is, then, the name of the conference: JSF Summit.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
15 years, 1 month
[jsr-314-open] [ADMIN] ChangeLog: moved some changes to "accepted"
by Ed Burns
In preparation for an as yet uncommitted and unscheduled maintenance
relase, I have moved some easy issues in the ChangeLog [1] from the
"proposed" section to the "accepted" section of that document.
I realize that several of you are eager to get started on official work
towards the next official JCP release of JSF. I want to remind you that
just because we're not actively making changes to the frame-maker
document portion of the specification, it doesn't mean we can't make
progress on real issues. Let's continue to use this list until Dan
prevails in getting the JCP to address our issues regarding the move to
the jsr-314-public list.
Ed
[1] http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Projects/Jsf2MR1ChangeLog
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
15 years, 1 month
Re: [jsr-314-open] mailinglist: looking for immediate action
by Ed Burns
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:54:45 -0500, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> said:
DA> Now back to this question: *So what replaces JSR-314-OPEN then? *
DA> There are two issues here:
DA> 1. What happens to the current archives of JSR-314-OPEN?
DA> 2. What list do we use in the future?
DA> Unless there are any objections here, Max has agreed to import all
DA> the archives from March 09 until now into the jsr-314-public forum
DA> on Monday. This will make them immediately accessible to the public
DA> and search engines. We have the option of closing the replies on
DA> the threads. *I'm not sure what the right answer is there.*
I'm fine with this migration and feel no need to close replies on the
threads.
DA> We can import the discussions into our list as well. Then, the two
DA> lists will continue on their own paths.
DA> That brings us to the second question, what is our list?
DA> We certainly don't need both jsr-314-eg(a)jcp.org and
DA> jsr-314-observers(a)jcp.org.
I don't know about that, but I do know we need jsr-314-eg(a)jcp.org to be
an EG private email list. Contractual discussions regarding licenses
and other topics that vendors feel sensitive about discussing openly
need a place to happen. jsr-314-eg(a)jcp.org has been and will continue
to be that place.
DA> And since we don't want a exclusively private list, that leaves us
DA> with jsr-314-observers(a)jcp.org.
Maybe JBoss doesn't want an exclusively private list as one of the list
options, but I know Sun does. I'll leave it for other EG members to
respond.
DA> It's not ideal, but we could probably live with PMO manually adding
DA> invited members to this list (to post). They claim that we are not
DA> restricted in who we choose to invite, so at least the policy is
DA> correct.
DA> However, the showstopper for jsr-314-observers@jcp is that the
DA> archives are not public for reading.
DA> We can adopt jsr-314-observers(a)jcp.org as soon as there is a public
DA> forum for it on jcp.org. I'd like to get this resolved ASAP so we
DA> can get off this list.
DA> That concludes my update. I suspect there will be plenty of
DA> discussion to follow. In summary, here are the action items for Max:
DA> 1. Posts to jsr-314-public(a)jcp.org should be sent out via e-mail.
DA> 2. Posting via jsr-314-public(a)jcp.org needs to be fixed
DA> 3. jsr-314-comments(a)jcp.org should be aliased to jsr-314-public(a)jcp.org
DA> 4. archives for jsr-314-observers(a)jcp.org needs to be publically accesable
DA> 5. JSR-314-OPEN archives should be imported into jsr-314-observers and
DA> jsr-314-public
Thanks for scratching your itch on this Dan. Your advocacy for
open-ness fits in with the continuing push of JCP to be more open.
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
15 years, 1 month
