[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.
--
13 years, 10 months
[jsr-314-open] [549-AJAX] Keep server-side state ID for AJAX requests.
by Alexandr Smirnov
In the case of server-side state saving, implementation of
ResponseStateManager saves a new state for an every request,even for a
same viewId as previous was, and generates a new value for
"javax.faces.ViewState" hidden field. That feature allows JSF to restore
proper view state then user returns to previous page by browser "back"
button and submit some form from that page again.
But that behaviour is incorrect for AJAX requests because in this case
browser does not save page in history ( Even if "back" button support
for AJAX will be implemented, it could be done by special 'iframe'
object only, and does not save page in history anyway ), and old values
is only going to garbage. As a result, small view states cache ( which
default size is 16 ) could be refilled by values from AJAX requests
soon, and browser "back" button support will be broken.
Patch to fix that issue have been attached to
https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=549
14 years, 12 months
[jsr-314-open] another important composite component template concern
by Dan Allen
I've been putting together a JSF 2 example for Seam/Web Beans as a way to
feel out some of the new features in JSF 2 and I came across another hangup
regarding the path of the composite components. The default (and fixed) path
is /resources inside of the web root. The problem here is that this folder
is not protected in any way by JSF. So assuming I have the following
composite comonent tag:
/resources/property/display.xhtml
I can access this out of the box using this servlet path
/resources/property/display.jsf
So developers will unknowningly be adding new public pages to their
application (although certainly broken in part) by creating composite
components.
There are two ways I would approach this from the spec to lock things down
by default. Please respond if you have any feelings about these choices.
#1. Don't allow view IDs to be referenced directly under the /resources/*
path.
#2. Make the default resources path /WEB-INF/resources
I strongly perfer option #2. I really don't like the fact that JSF is
consuming a top level folder in my web root for it's own use. It is not
clear as a developer coming into the project how it differs from other
folders. Plus, it blocks my use of the resources path in my URL. Anything
under WEB-INF is invisible and thus a perfect candidate for extension
folders.
As a side note, it would be nice if JSF could also provide a filter to
protect direct access to view IDs (*.xhtml) out of the box, or perhaps a
switch at the very least in the RI. Malicious spiders can so easily locate
insecure JSF applications simply by trying URLs with *.xhtml instead of
*.jsf.
-Dan
p.s. I realize that the suggestion Ed made below is a workaround for my
concern, but it seems like a pretty inconvenient way to keep an application
secure (when security should be convenient to implement).
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ed Burns <Ed.Burns(a)sun.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:21:42 -0400, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)GMAIL.COM>
> said:
>
> DA> Another question came up at the JSF 2.0 presentation last night, this
> one
> DA> about composite components.
>
> DA> Can composite component namespaces/directories have multiple nested
> DA> directories? Same question with resource locations?
> DA> http://java.sun.com/jsf/composite/storefront/form/
>
> The way we agreed to do this was the following syntax in a
> facelet-taglibraryA.xml file:
>
> <facelet-taglib>
> <namespace>http://domain.com/path</namespace>
> <composite-library-name>compositeTest</composite-library-name>
> </facelet-taglib>
>
> And this in a facelet-taglibraryB.xml file
>
> <facelet-taglib>
> <namespace>http://domain.com/path/nested</namespace>
> <composite-library-name>compositeTestNested</composite-library-name>
> </facelet-taglib>
>
> Yes, you are correct that the resource naming scheme prevents nested
> resource libraries. Nested resource libraries were not on the list of
> requirements when we designed this feature back in November of 2007. We
> will not accept this requirement change at this point.
>
> Ed
>
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
14 years, 12 months
[jsr-314-open] default values for composite component attributes
by David Geary
I'm not seeing default values applied to composite component attributes when
those attributes are not specified in the using page.
I'm also not seeing an difference in behavior in my app when I specify that
an attribute is required and I don't supply it. The javadocs for the
composite:attribute required attribute simply say:
"True if the page author must supply a value for this attribute."
But it gives no insight as to what should happen when the page author fails
to supply a value. Do we throw an exception? The result of not providing a
required attribute should be specified in the javadocs, IMO.
david
14 years, 12 months
[jsr-314-open] compositions inside composite components
by David Geary
Section 3.6.1.3 of the spec says:
"...Any valid Facelet markup is valid for use inside of a composite
component, including the templating features specified in..."
But if I do this...
<composite:implementation> <composition
template="/templates/masterLayout.xhtml">
...
</composition>
</composite:implementation>
..I get a NPE, (mojarra 4/27/09 nightly build). I can use the composition
directly without any problems.
david
15 years
[jsr-314-open] [293-Ajax] REOPEN rename <f:ajax> to <f:clientBehavior>?
by Ed Burns
I am opening the 2.0 door a crack to consider this one renaming change.
Don't expect that I'll let other things through.
Several people have suggested renaming f:ajax to f:clientBehavior. Here
are some arguments for and against renaming.
Arguments for renaming
* more correct. The attached object is a clientBehavior
* it's possible and likely to use the tag for non-ajax things
* this is the 20% case
Arguments against renaming
* most users will be using the tag for Ajax
* IDE autocomplete is important to consider. Many new users rely
heavily on this feature and if we don't have an ajax tag, we force
them to look at the docs. Autocomplete junkies hate that.
* this is the 80% case
My opinion is not to rename, but Pete, Martin and I have different
thoughts on this so I'll bring it to the EG.
Ed
--
15 years
[jsr-314-open] [ADMIN] jsr-314-comments@jcp.org goes straight to jsr-314-open.
by Ed Burns
Since at least 2004, the JCP jsr-XXX-comments(a)jcp.org email lists set up
by the JCP go to the spec leads. Spec leads may then send such comments
on to the EG at their discretion.
Dan Allen suggests we change this arrangement and have
jsr-314-comments(a)jcp.org go straight to the jsr-314-open(a)jcp.org list.
Personally, I favor the existing arrangement but will go with the
prevalent opinion. Thoughts?
Ed
--
15 years
Re: [jsr-314-open] ADMIN: Final list of issues for JSF 2.0 and actions for each
by Ed Burns
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:44:00 -0400, Ed Burns <ed.burns(a)sun.com> said:
EB> I will send another email with the dates for the remainder of
EB> JSR-314.
Here it is:
20090403
Proposed Final Draft posted to JCP website
20090508
Final Approval Ballot Begins
20090522
Final Approval Ballot Ends
20090529
Deliver Final JSR Artifacts to JCP (Spec, RI (Mojarra 2.0 RC1), TCK)
Ed
15 years
Re: [jsr-314-open] Fwd: URGENT - JSF 2 change
by Ed Burns
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:22:22 +0100, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> said:
PM> Ed,
PM> Dan has worked up a patch for the requested change:
Ok, I'll apply the patch and ensure it meets the quality criteria set
forth in the email.
Ed
15 years
