Yup, The actual text from the all classe description (the page no one ever read like the package description one) is:
'*These javadoc files constitute the “Faces Managed Bean Annotation Specification for Containers Conforming to Servlet 2.5 and Beyond”* *At the time of this writing, a forthcoming JCP effort is being planned to extract the specification for managed beans from JSF and place it into its own specification. To account for this effort and to avoid introducing classes into JSF 2.0 that would have to be deprecated when this effort is complete, implementations of JSF 2.0 are not required to implement the “Faces Managed Bean Annotation Specification for Containers Conforming to Servlet 2.5”. However, JSF implementations are strongly encouraged to implement this specification, as it provides significant improvements in ease of use.* *The annotations must be processed as specified in section JSF.11.5.1.'* On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Jan-Kees van Andel < [email protected]> wrote: > Aha, was that the reason? I know the first commit was in "model", but > I saw some time ago they were moved to "bean". > > The bean package sounds better to me anyway. Model contains the > DataModels... > > /JK > > 2009/8/3 Simon Lessard <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > > > They used to be under javax.faces.model. However, due to overlap with > > JSR-299 they were moved to javax.faces.bean, see the companion JavaDoc > > (under \managed-bean-javadocs). > > > > > > Regards, > > > > ~ Simon > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Curtiss Howard < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> The JSF 2.0 sample I'm trying to get working annotates its bean with > >> @javax.faces.bean.ManagedBean, among other things. I noticed that JK > >> dropped in annotations for javax.faces.bean, but I'm wondering where > >> these annotations are defined. They certainly aren't listed in the > >> "final" Javadocs dated 6/26, so what gives? I pulled this sample from > >> Mojarra's official RI binary zip, so I assume that this wasn't an > >> accident, but I'm baffled as to why I can't find documentation on > >> them. > >> > >> Can anyone shed some light on this situation? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> > >> Curtiss Howard > > > > >
