Re: [jsr-314-open] [ADMIN] Proposal Faces Managed Bean Annotations For Containers that implement Servlet 2.5 and Beyond
by Ed Burns
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:46:46 -0400, Kito Mann <kito.mann(a)VIRTUA.COM> said:
KM> Ed,
KM> Hmmm., fascinating development. In this bundle, I don't see the
KM> "managed-bean-javadocs" directory, nor do I see any changes in section 5.1
KM> of the prose document.
KM> Have the Java EE folks discussed how managed beans and WebBeans will be
KM> reconciled, since they have different XML formats and annotations? For
KM> example, in Java EE 6, is @ManagedBean more or less the same as @Named?
That discussion is in progress. I do know that the EE managed bean spec
will not specify the XML deployment descriptor. That will be left to
the consumer, such as JSF.
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
15 years, 1 month
[jsr-314-open] [ADMIN] Proposal Faces Managed Bean Annotations For Containers that implement Servlet 2.5 and Beyond
by Ed Burns
This is likely new to most of you, but we need to make a small,
non-technical, change to the way we think of our annotations related to
Managed Beans in JSF 2.0. First, some background.
Fact
JSF2 will be final several months before Java EE6 becomes final. JSF2
will do a maintenance release to synchronize with EE6.
Corollary
JSF2 must not depend on any features defined in Java EE 6.
Thankfully, we have no such features. No, wait a minute...
Recent development
A movement is afoot at the EE platform level to extract the concept of
managed beans from JSF and move it into its own specification, which
would be a core part of Java EE 6. EJB, JSF, and Web Beans would then
depend on this concept. This naturally would include the annotations
relating to managed beans which we have in JSF 2.0. The EE Platform
is now directing the JSF EG to make changes to accomodate this recent
development.
Options
1. Drop the managed bean annotation feature for JSF2.0, adding it back
for the JSF2 Maintenance Release for EE6.
2. Find some way to keep the managed bean annotation feature for JSF
2.0 that will be compatible with EE6.
I've seen the smiles on peoples faces when I present JSF 2.0 and I get
to the @ManagedBean @RequestScoped part. I couldn't bare to disappoint
users that will be using JSF 2.0 outside of JavaEE 6.
Here is Roberto Chinnici's implementation of option 2 which is specified
in this snapshot [1]. I have modified our code for generating javadocs
to create a separate top level javadoc bundle containing only the
annotations relating to managed beans. JSF 2.0 implementations are
strongly encouraged to implement this additional specification, but it
is optional.
This is simply a change in how we think about these annotations, not in
the way they are specified or implemented, though they have been moved
to a new package: javax.faces.bean.
ACTION: I really don't have much leverage here so if you disagree with
this, you'll have to take it up with your organization's JSR-316
representative.
[1] https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/files/documents/1936/130...
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
15 years, 1 month
[jsr-314-open] facelets tag refactoring
by Ed Burns
It turns out there is no diffence in the meaning of the two packages
javax.faces.webapp.pdl.facelets and
javax.faces.webapp.pdl.facelets.tag. Therefore, I'm removing the .tag
package and putting everything up into the .facelets package.
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
15 years, 1 month
[jsr-314-open] h:head and <head> attributes (was Re: h:body and <body> attributes)
by David Geary
Ditto for h:head.
david
Ed Burns wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:50:56 -0600, David Geary <
>>>>>>> clarity.training(a)GMAIL.COM> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> DG> Is there a reason why h:body does not pass through any of the HTML
>> <body>
>> DG> attributes, such as onload?
>>
>> Good catch. They should all be passed through. I added it to the spec
>> and filed issue 1053 agains the impl.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
15 years, 1 month
Re: [jsr-314-open] [Fwd: [NEW] <f:ajax> and <f:validateBean> - consistent wrapping solution needed?]
by Ed Burns
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:26:22 +0000, Andy Schwartz <ANDY.SCHWARTZ(a)ORACLE.COM> said:
AS> Are people okay with this proposal - ie. okay with standardizing on the
AS> f:ajax wrapping behavior? Seems to me that this was the EG's preference
AS> back when we discussed f:ajax wrapping behavior last year, so hope that
AS> this is acceptable now.
Yes, I'm ok with it. I've asked Ryan to sketch the changes to the spec
that need to be made to accomodate it.
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
15 years, 1 month
Re: [jsr-314-open] h:body and <body> attributes
by Ed Burns
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:50:56 -0600, David Geary <clarity.training(a)GMAIL.COM> said:
DG> Is there a reason why h:body does not pass through any of the HTML <body>
DG> attributes, such as onload?
Good catch. They should all be passed through. I added it to the spec
and filed issue 1053 agains the impl.
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
15 years, 1 month
