1:27 p.m.
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(a)us.ibm.com | phone: (919) 543-5593 | t/l: 441-5593 |
mobile: (919) 454-1231 | fax: (919) 254-5250
From:
Kito Mann <kito.mann(a)virtua.com>
To:
jsr-314-open(a)jcp.org
Cc:
Neil Griffin <neil.griffin(a)tritonsvc.com>, Wesley Hales
<whales(a)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(a)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
