Maybe other folks from the Ajax sub group or EG have some additional
thoughts.
I've got more thoughts on this, but for the moment only have time for a
few comments... I agree with your representation of how this played out
- ie. the folks most involved in defining the Ajax APIs were very much
focused on getting a strong foundation in place. From my perspective,
this was a fairly grueling effort in which we did our best to take into
account requirements of the (competing) JSF Ajax frameworks at the
table. Personally, I was very impressed with the level of cooperation
between the various players.
Note that there was also a fairly late overhaul - ie. the generalization
of our Ajax solution into the Behavior API, which took a tremendous
amount work performed under quite a bit of pressure due to the impending
spec deadlines. At the time there was general agreement that nailing
down the core APIs and providing points of extensibility was more
important that ensuring that every feature requirement of each of the
JSF Ajax frameworks was directly addressed by the spec.
I think we have accomplished quite a bit with the JSF 2.0 Ajax APIs.
Sure, there is more work to do. As long as we are diligent about
identifying missing requirements or ways to improve interoperability, we
should be in good shape moving forward.
And I'm sure ADF Faces will follow suite (if they haven't
started
already).
Yes indeed. :-)
Actually, one of the reasons why I have been slow in responding to EG
emails recently is because I am doing my best to stay focused on
developing our ADF Faces/JSF 2.0 integration strategy.
Andy