Re: [jsr-314-open] [ADMIN] Proposal Faces Managed Bean Annotations For Containers that implement Servlet 2.5 and Beyond

Hi Dan, No offense taken although I'm going to remove my EG member hat to answer that from personal point of view only, not involving Fujitsu's. Firstly, from my experience and the conferences I've given, JSR-299 is not what I would call a rock star in people mind. In fact, I feel that it may be extremely unpopular. That status started a short thread in the past where Kito proposed that JSF provides its own conversation scope in case 299 didn't live up to the expectation and, to be honest, I kind of agree with him. I would have liked a page flow scope at least out-of-the-box in JSF for wizard based applications. So, my first reason is I don't think people will use JSR-299 much (at least at first), while, as you mentioned, JSF 2.0 is probably one of the most awaited spec of JEE 6 (if not the most). Secondly, depending on JEE 6 means that people won't be able to run JSF 2.0 outside JEE 6 application servers, placing us in the same situation as with JSF 1.2's dependency on JSP 2.1, meaning JSF 2.0 won't be used for about 2 years from now which is not an incredibly interesting marketing statement considering all the most needed improvements (especially with interoperability) that 2.0 brings. Regards, ~ Simon ________________________________ From: JSR 314 Open Mailing list on behalf of Dan Allen Sent: Fri 4/3/2009 3:30 PM To: JSR-314-OPEN(a)JCP.ORG Subject: Re: [jsr-314-open] [ADMIN] Proposal Faces Managed Bean Annotations For Containers that implement Servlet 2.5 and Beyond At one time there were criticisms that JSR-299 was not addressing the problem it set out to solve, which was to create a solid integration between JSF and EJB through the use of annotations inspired by Seam and similar initiatives. But to me, the problem is not with JSR-299 but with JSF 2.0 not acknowleging the solution being proposed in the JSR-299 spec. I've yet to understand why JSF is trying to define it's own annotations for name-to-bean mapping when that is the role of JSR-299 (the beans themselves could be EJB or this "simple bean" whereever that is going to end up living). I know a lot of effort has gone into creating these managed bean annotations for JSF 2.0, but that doesn't remove the fact that they are duplicates of what JSR-299 has. Besides, I really can't see being very productive with the still limited dependency injection that the managed bean annotations offer. Having to reference a value expression only in @ManagedProperty seems really awkward to me (and always has even from JSF 1 days, which is why I always used Spring). I'm saying this not to upset anyone but to point out that we need to make sure that these specs actually look they considered one another. And why is it such a big deal that JSF 2 rely on Java EE 6? How long are we really talking about in the grand scheme of things? People have waited so long for JSF 2 that we might as well get the best integration we can rather than fudge and confuse users as to when they can use what parts. -Dan -- Dan Allen Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action http://mojavelinux.com <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.