>>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:07:08 -0400, Kito Mann <kito.mann(a)VIRTUA.COM >>>>> > said: KM> So, after perusing the spec, I noticed that there's no mention KM> specifically of Groovy. And I don't see much on the Groovy site KM> itself indicating when/if the Groovy JSR will ever be finished. Any KM> insight? Right, as you know, at nearly every JSF 2 talk I give, I implore the audience to pepper Mr. La Forge with annoying emails about completing the JSR. Until it is completed, we can't explicitly mention Groovy. The spec language we currently have is as specific as I can get. Do you have another suggestion? Ed

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann(a)virtua.com&gt; wrote: > That's what I was afraid of :-). What about automatically reloading > configuration -- did I miss that in the spec? Anyone have an answer for this one?

> I would hope that in the development stage that this is going to be > available in implementations. I'm trying to think why it needs to be defined > in the spec. Does it need to be? > Not necessarily. It's just frustrating that none of the deployment features can be adequately defined in the spec (i.e. Groovy, and reloading artifacts). The JSR says: Eliminate the "deployment step". All the artifacts that comprise a JSF application can be modified while the application is running. This will bring the responsiveness people have been used to with iterative JSP development to the JSF developer. One design idea for this is to allow JSF artifacts to be authored in Script. As far as I can tell, the only parts of this we've actually covered are (1) reloading of VDL pages, and (2) allowing components to be authored in Script. So, an implementation can only support (1) and (2), and consequently still require restarts for changes to faces-config.xml or other artifacts (such as managed beans). That's not much better than JSF 1.2.