[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] Composite.tld Fixes
by Roger Kitain
Folks -
Per a webtier forum issue (fix typos in composite.tld), I've added C065
to the change log for tracking.
Thanks, Roger.
14 years, 10 months
Re: [jsr-314-open] Handling of "" vs null action outcomes
by Ed Burns
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:54:06 -0600, Jason Lee <jason(a)steeplesoft.com> said:
JL> On 2/15/10 3:49 PM, Andy Schwartz wrote:
>> FWIW, my feeling is that, while returning null is a reasonable
>> workaround, there is no way that our unit test is not the only code
>> out there that is returning empty action outcomes and expecting to
>> stay on the same page. I would like to see this behavior preserved not
>> so that we can revert our unit test to its previous behavior (I am
>> fine with our fix), but because the current behavior may break other
>> users as they upgrade to JSF2.
>>
>> Thoughts?
JL> I know in the apps I've worked on whether I return an empty String or
JL> null depends on the mood I'm in. :) I think we should clarify the spec
JL> to preserve the 1.2 behavior.
I agree completely.
I have added this to the changelog and am implementing it presently.
It's issue C063 in the Changelog.
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
14 years, 10 months
[jsr-314-open] Handling of "" vs null action outcomes
by Andy Schwartz
Gang -
One of our unit tests here at Oracle tripped up over a small change in
behavior between JSF 1.2 and JSF 2. The unit test contains an action
method that returns an empty string, eg:
<h:commandButton action="#{foo.doSomething}"/>
public String doSomthing()
{
// Do something here
return "";
}
When running against JSF 1.2, the empty string outcome would result in
the test case remaining on the same page, as there is no navigation case
that matches this outcome. In JSF2, implicit navigation kicks in. In
particular, the following statement from section 7.4.2 is applied:
> If viewIdToTest does not begin with “/”, take the current viewId and
> look for the last “/”. If not found, prepend a “/” and continue
> Otherwise remove all characters in viewId after, but not including,
> “/”, then append viewIdToTest and let the result be viewIdToTest.
In our case, we have the following values:
- Current viewId: "region/refresh".
- viewIdToTest: ""
The resulting view id after applying the above logic is "region/". This
ends up being treated as an implicit view id. In our particular test
case, there is no view associated with this view id. Instead of
remaining on the same page, we now attempt to navigate to a view that
does not exist.
Our test case made the assumption that returning the empty string from
the outcome would result in the same behavior as returning null. This
was true in JSF 1.2, but no longer appears to be true in JSF2. We have
tweaked this unit test to return null so that our tests are now passing,
but I wanted to follow up to find out whether this small difference in
behavior between "" and null outcomes is intentional. It seems to me
that these should behave the same. It would be easy enough for us to add
a sentence to the spec that states that empty string outcomes should not
be treated as implicit view ids. Does anyone here know of a reason why
we shouldn't spec this?
FWIW, my feeling is that, while returning null is a reasonable
workaround, there is no way that our unit test is not the only code out
there that is returning empty action outcomes and expecting to stay on
the same page. I would like to see this behavior preserved not so that
we can revert our unit test to its previous behavior (I am fine with our
fix), but because the current behavior may break other users as they
upgrade to JSF2.
Thoughts?
Andy
14 years, 10 months
Re: [jsr-314-open] Coercion in the EL
by Ed Burns
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:03:35 +0200, Martin Marinschek
MM> Hi all,
MM> I don't know if we discussed this already, but today the coercion
MM> issue in the EL made me loose a few hours again. I've had this before,
MM> but seemingly forgot about it - time to follow up on this.
MM> The issue in short: collapsed="#{bb.collapsed}"
MM> Boolean getCollapsed() {
MM> return null;
MM> }
MM> will lead to a value of "false" for the collapsed attribute if
MM> java.lang.Boolean is set as the expected type of the corresponding
MM> value-expression, according to the EL spec. Hrmmpf.
I have filed <https://uel.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12>. I
have Cc'd Kin-Man on this message. However, I think the prospects for
making the change Martin suggests are low. This is a very fundamental
change in a technology that's been around for years. I'm quite certain
it will have unintended negative consequences.
MM> Do you guys think we should fix this in the JSF implementations, by
MM> passing in java.lang.Object to the underlying EL expression, and doing
MM> the coercion ourselves? We - most of the time - wrap the
MM> value-expression in a Facelets TagValueExpression anyways, so we could
MM> certainly do this! If the RI team agrees, I can certainly give word
MM> out to the MyFaces team discussing if that is reasonable to us as
MM> well.
I think we should definately fix this in the JSF impl right now. I
don't think discarding potentially valuable semantic information is the
right idea. I'm sorry to suggest this, but I'd like to have it as a
configuration option.
This change could be affected in the implementation of our
ScopedAttributeELResolver. Because table 5-22 of the spec declares that
our ScopedAttributeELResolver must come directly after BeanELResolver
(which is the resolver that resolves your "collapsed" property), we can
check the isPropertyResolved property to detect this case. We will also
have to insert another link in the chain, immediately *before* the
BeanELResolver.
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
14 years, 10 months
[jsr-314-open] Old version facelets taglib jars
by Ganesh
On the MyFaces dev list there are some discussions about
which versions of facelets taglibs should be allowed
with MyFaces 2.0. Mojarra runs fine with old facelets
taglibs, but MyFaces 2.0 beta currently insists on
a taglib version=2.0. So, what does the EG say: Is
a JSF 2.0 compatible implementation required to
refuse old version facelets taglibs? Here's the relevant
part of the spec:
<xsd:simpleType name="facelet-taglib-versionType">
<xsd:annotation>
A-100 JavaServer Faces Specification • March 2009
<xsd:documentation>
This type contains the recognized versions of
facelet-taglib supported.
</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:token">
<xsd:enumeration value="2.0"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
Best regards,
Ganesh
14 years, 10 months
[jsr-314-open] is <f:view contentType="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> a valid notation?
by Leonardo Uribe
Hi
I found some examples on mojarra distribution uses the following notation
to define content type and encoding:
<f:view contentType="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
Is that valid? (it has sense)
in JSF 2.0 Rev A Change Log it says:
C051 Errata TLD Docs for Facelets f:view needs contentType and
encoding attributes
but checking previous mails on this list, in the topic:
[jsr-314-open] Errata: contentType and encoding on f:view
it says this two params should be removed from facelet taglibdoc.
regards,
Leonardo Uribe
14 years, 10 months
