Re: JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale?
I am late on a reply, but I am also interested in the implementation stuff. and 303 sounds interesting. From what I know is that Mario (MyFaces) and Nial (struts) are going to join that JSR. David: welcome back :) On 7/27/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently spoke with Gavin King (spec lead for JSR-299) about this JSR. In addition to getting his agreement on both Matthias and James to be on the EG, we talked a bit about their (Red Hat's) plans for the RI and TCK. Their thinking is that the RI and TCK would be developed by Red Hat themselves (since they are the company responsible for providing it) under some reasonable open source license ... but Gavin would actually like it if there was a second implementation being developed at the same time. That kind of thing goes a long way towards catching design limitations and/or ambiguities in the spec as it's being developed. So, I've got a question for us ... would we be interested (now or later) in building *a* compatible implementation of this JSR, even though it wouldn't be *the* RI? Instead, it would be a feature of Shale in addition to all the other stuff we do. I'm pretty intrigued by this, and the ideas that JSR-299 wants to deal with fit pretty nicely with what we've already started. It would make sense for us to have this kind of functionality available inside Shale. If we go this way, this seems like a good candidate for the sandbox during development (since we wouldn't be able to ship a finished release of it until the spec goes final). What do you think? Are we interested in putting this on our roadmap? (And following up +1s with code? :-) Craig PS: Another JSR we should keep an eye on is 303 (common annotations for validation) that Jason recently submitted. If it gets accepted, we'll likely want to support the result in Shale as well. -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale?
I recently spoke with Gavin King (spec lead for JSR-299) about this JSR. In addition to getting his agreement on both Matthias and James to be on the EG, we talked a bit about their (Red Hat's) plans for the RI and TCK. Their thinking is that the RI and TCK would be developed by Red Hat themselves (since they are the company responsible for providing it) under some reasonable open source license ... but Gavin would actually like it if there was a second implementation being developed at the same time. That kind of thing goes a long way towards catching design limitations and/or ambiguities in the spec as it's being developed. So, I've got a question for us ... would we be interested (now or later) in building *a* compatible implementation of this JSR, even though it wouldn't be *the* RI? Instead, it would be a feature of Shale in addition to all the other stuff we do. I'm pretty intrigued by this, and the ideas that JSR-299 wants to deal with fit pretty nicely with what we've already started. It would make sense for us to have this kind of functionality available inside Shale. If we go this way, this seems like a good candidate for the sandbox during development (since we wouldn't be able to ship a finished release of it until the spec goes final). What do you think? Are we interested in putting this on our roadmap? (And following up +1s with code? :-) Craig PS: Another JSR we should keep an eye on is 303 (common annotations for validation) that Jason recently submitted. If it gets accepted, we'll likely want to support the result in Shale as well.
Re: JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale?
On Jul 27, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote: What do you think? Are we interested in putting this on our roadmap? (And following up +1s with code? :-) +1. All I know about JSR-299 so far is that it is inspired by Seam. All I know about Seam is what I heard from Gavin's session at JavaOne, and I have to admit it was pretty compelling. Greg
RE: JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale?
+1 The world of JSF add-ons and extensions is getting pretty crowded, and I like the idea of Shale being a one-stop-shop for high-quality extensions and tools for JSF. Often people ask me what about Shale, and what _is_ Seam? Also, it'd be nice to have a WebBeans implementation that doesn't have any (real or imagined) ties to the JEMS product line. P.S. I've been pretty quiet on this list, but I do follow Shale and provide training for it. ~~~ Kito D. Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig McClanahan Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:55 PM To: Shale Developers List Subject: JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale? I recently spoke with Gavin King (spec lead for JSR-299) about this JSR. In addition to getting his agreement on both Matthias and James to be on the EG, we talked a bit about their (Red Hat's) plans for the RI and TCK. Their thinking is that the RI and TCK would be developed by Red Hat themselves (since they are the company responsible for providing it) under some reasonable open source license ... but Gavin would actually like it if there was a second implementation being developed at the same time. That kind of thing goes a long way towards catching design limitations and/or ambiguities in the spec as it's being developed. So, I've got a question for us ... would we be interested (now or later) in building *a* compatible implementation of this JSR, even though it wouldn't be *the* RI? Instead, it would be a feature of Shale in addition to all the other stuff we do. I'm pretty intrigued by this, and the ideas that JSR-299 wants to deal with fit pretty nicely with what we've already started. It would make sense for us to have this kind of functionality available inside Shale. If we go this way, this seems like a good candidate for the sandbox during development (since we wouldn't be able to ship a finished release of it until the spec goes final). What do you think? Are we interested in putting this on our roadmap? (And following up +1s with code? :-) Craig PS: Another JSR we should keep an eye on is 303 (common annotations for validation) that Jason recently submitted. If it gets accepted, we'll likely want to support the result in Shale as well.
Re: JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale?
+1 It's quite fit for Shale. BaTien On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 12:55 -0700, Craig McClanahan wrote: I recently spoke with Gavin King (spec lead for JSR-299) about this JSR. In addition to getting his agreement on both Matthias and James to be on the EG, we talked a bit about their (Red Hat's) plans for the RI and TCK. Their thinking is that the RI and TCK would be developed by Red Hat themselves (since they are the company responsible for providing it) under some reasonable open source license ... but Gavin would actually like it if there was a second implementation being developed at the same time. That kind of thing goes a long way towards catching design limitations and/or ambiguities in the spec as it's being developed. So, I've got a question for us ... would we be interested (now or later) in building *a* compatible implementation of this JSR, even though it wouldn't be *the* RI? Instead, it would be a feature of Shale in addition to all the other stuff we do. I'm pretty intrigued by this, and the ideas that JSR-299 wants to deal with fit pretty nicely with what we've already started. It would make sense for us to have this kind of functionality available inside Shale. If we go this way, this seems like a good candidate for the sandbox during development (since we wouldn't be able to ship a finished release of it until the spec goes final). What do you think? Are we interested in putting this on our roadmap? (And following up +1s with code? :-) Craig PS: Another JSR we should keep an eye on is 303 (common annotations for validation) that Jason recently submitted. If it gets accepted, we'll likely want to support the result in Shale as well.
Re: JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale?
2006/7/27, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jul 27, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote: What do you think? Are we interested in putting this on our roadmap? (And following up +1s with code? :-) +1. All I know about JSR-299 so far is that it is inspired by Seam. All I know about Seam is what I heard from Gavin's session at JavaOne, and I have to admit it was pretty compelling. Seam is very cool. I have a Seam CRUD demo in one of my NFJS sessions that's a big attention-getter. david Greg
Re: JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale?
+1 This is a great idea. -- James Mitchell On Jul 27, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote: I recently spoke with Gavin King (spec lead for JSR-299) about this JSR. In addition to getting his agreement on both Matthias and James to be on the EG, we talked a bit about their (Red Hat's) plans for the RI and TCK. Their thinking is that the RI and TCK would be developed by Red Hat themselves (since they are the company responsible for providing it) under some reasonable open source license ... but Gavin would actually like it if there was a second implementation being developed at the same time. That kind of thing goes a long way towards catching design limitations and/or ambiguities in the spec as it's being developed. So, I've got a question for us ... would we be interested (now or later) in building *a* compatible implementation of this JSR, even though it wouldn't be *the* RI? Instead, it would be a feature of Shale in addition to all the other stuff we do. I'm pretty intrigued by this, and the ideas that JSR-299 wants to deal with fit pretty nicely with what we've already started. It would make sense for us to have this kind of functionality available inside Shale. If we go this way, this seems like a good candidate for the sandbox during development (since we wouldn't be able to ship a finished release of it until the spec goes final). What do you think? Are we interested in putting this on our roadmap? (And following up +1s with code? :-) Craig PS: Another JSR we should keep an eye on is 303 (common annotations for validation) that Jason recently submitted. If it gets accepted, we'll likely want to support the result in Shale as well.
Re: JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale?
On 7/27/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, I've got a question for us ... would we be interested (now or later) in building *a* compatible implementation of this JSR, even though it wouldn't be *the* RI? Instead, it would be a feature of Shale in addition to all the other stuff we do. I'm pretty intrigued by this, and the ideas that JSR-299 wants to deal with fit pretty nicely with what we've already started. It would make sense for us to have this kind of functionality available inside Shale. +1 -- Sounds like fun. :) -- Wendy
Re: JSR-299 (Web Beans) Implementation In Shale?
From: Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I recently spoke with Gavin King (spec lead for JSR-299) about this JSR. In addition to getting his agreement on both Matthias and James to be on the EG, we talked a bit about their (Red Hat's) plans for the RI and TCK. Their thinking is that the RI and TCK would be developed by Red Hat themselves (since they are the company responsible for providing it) under some reasonable open source license ... but Gavin would actually like it if there was a second implementation being developed at the same time. That kind of thing goes a long way towards catching design limitations and/or ambiguities in the spec as it's being developed. So, I've got a question for us ... would we be interested (now or later) in building *a* compatible implementation of this JSR, even though it wouldn't be *the* RI? Instead, it would be a feature of Shale in addition to all the other stuff we do. I'm pretty intrigued by this, and the ideas that JSR-299 wants to deal with fit pretty nicely with what we've already started. It would make sense for us to have this kind of functionality available inside Shale. If we go this way, this seems like a good candidate for the sandbox during development (since we wouldn't be able to ship a finished release of it until the spec goes final). What do you think? Are we interested in putting this on our roadmap? (And following up +1s with code? :-) +1 That would be a great addition. How about shale composites :-) Craig PS: Another JSR we should keep an eye on is 303 (common annotations for validation) that Jason recently submitted. If it gets accepted, we'll likely want to support the result in Shale as well. Outstanding!
