[jsr-314-open] Fwd: So what's left for 2.0?

From: Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com&gt; Date: 11 March 2009 15:19:09 GMT To: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)bleepbleep.org.uk&gt; Subject: Re: So what's left for 2.0? On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz(a)oracle.com > wrote: Gang - Seems like we've still got a few loose ends that we either need to finish up for 2.0, or, if not, agree to punt on until 2.1. Based on recent email threads, these include: 1. State saving Martin had raised concerns about compatibility between the new tree visitor-based state saving implementation and the jstl tags. It sounded like Martin had a patch - but not sure whether the patch addresses these problems fully. Also not sure whether we are providing delta state saving. Can anyone clarify what the plan is for 2.0? 2. f:ajax/f:validateBean wrapping behavior For consistency I think we want to move f:validateBean over to a wrapping strategy that is closer to f:ajax, but want to hear Dan's take on this. (Dan - I can help walk you through the f:ajax implementation if you have questions about this.) I'm fine with this. It will take out some ambiguity and it aligns with <s:validateAll> which we have used in Seam. We should still support the validator nested within EditableValueHolder of course as an override, which is consistent with <f:ajax> too. I think the next step is to define in text the override strategy. I can do this if you want me to move forward with it. (The disable attribute on validator should be renamed to disabled or vice-versa for <f:ajax>; I like the verb better) If we go with the nesting strategy, I want to move forward with my idea of making the branch validator a prototype that is cloned on to each child EditableValueHolder. That way we can support validators that are StateHolders (i.e., have properties like regex). -Dan -- Dan Allen Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action