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

[Pete Muir]

Hi Kito,

Not advocating one way or another, and I do completely understand the  
desire to have JSF run standalone in a servlet container.

On 5 Apr 2009, at 13:28, Kito Mann wrote:

> I think the major point here is that you should be able to write a  
> real JSF app without any other libraries. We are so close to that  
> with JSF 2 -- the only thing missing is conversation scope.   
> (Managed beans are not very powerful, but they're good enough for  
> some cases).
>
> Furthermore, the dependency on JSP 2.1 really hurt JSF, and if we go  
> down that road again, I think it's really going to hurt adoption  
> again. I'm not at all convinced that the Java EE vendors won't take  
> another 1-2 years to implement Java EE 6. Also, so far we've been  
> telling everyone this will run on Java EE 5.

299 is targeted at EE5 and EE6.

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> http://www.jsfcentral.com
> http://www.Virtua.com
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at REDHAT.COM> wrote:
>
>> Simon et. al.
>>
>> I'm specifically avoiding (for the obvious reason that I am  
>> extremely biased) taking a stance here, however I would like to  
>> emphasize, that, although the JSR-299 spec is tied to Java EE,  
>> there are implementations that run (or intend to run) in pretty  
>> much any environment:
>>
>> * the RI currently runs in JBoss, GlassFish, Tomcat and plain Java SE
>> * I know from talking to people from the Apache OpenWebBeans team  
>> that they have similar goals in terms of targets (and have actually  
>> been concentrating on servlet containers for now).
>>
>> On 4 Apr 2009, at 19:24, Simon Lessard wrote:
>>
>>> 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 at JCP.ORG
>>> Subject: Re: [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.
>>
>> --
>> Pete Muir
>> http://www.seamframework.org
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete

--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete