Re: [jsr-314-open] Pre-JCP filed draft of JSF 2.2 JSR

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 <Mail Attachment.gif> 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&gt; To: jsr-314-open(a)jcp.org Cc: Neil Griffin <neil.griffin(a)tritonsvc.com&gt;, Wesley Hales <whales(a)redhat.com&gt; 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