On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > in theory yes, in praxis no ;) > > At the time OWB picks up the extension, we will try to add the > javax.faces.bean.ViewScoped.class and the corresponding Context to the > BeanManager -> kawumms, because the ViewScoped.class is not available in > JSF-1.2 >
that's what I'd imagine, that you'd get some problems there > Thus, I really hesitate to check it in :( > > I also already thought about adding a webbeans-extensions module (copying > over from my currently composing mail): > > What about introducing an own 'extensions' module for parts which are not OWB > specific but would also work on other containers? > > I have the following structure in mind: > > webbeans-extensions I think I lost your mix between webbeans-extensions and extensions.. I am generally fine with have some nice extensions here. +1 on "webbeans-extensions" to fit the current structure ;-) > +- cdi-jsf2 > | +- cdi-jsf2-api (contains e.g. a new @FlashScoped annotation) > | +- cdi-jsf2-impl (contains extensions for @ViewScoped + @FlashScoped) why would that ViewScoped be -impl ? > +- cdi-another > > Otoh, this interferes with seam3 which will also contain such an extension. > And there is currently no way to disable 'parts' of an extension. The way to > go is imho to introduce some properties to 'disable' parts of the > functionality of an extension manually. > > After talking with Nik and Pete on IRC, I'm pretty sure that we need to do > this extensions, because Seam3 is still LGPL and so we wouldn't be able to > provide >this functionality for Geronimo or MyFaces if needed some days. yep, I am all for this extensions thingymajong :-) > And supporting @ViewScoped via CDI may be part of the next JSF spec?... As much as I like to finally get rid of the entire "javax.faces.bean" package, I strongly doubt that this will happen. The SpringSource folks aren't supporting the CDI... :-) so, they don't want that dependency, I guess... But on the other hand, they never voted on any Java EE JSRs ... Dan Allen brought up a similar thing, where he just said "to recommend" CDI over javax.faces.bean :-) -Matthias > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: fully going JSF2? >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 12:46 PM >> >>>This also has the side >> effect that we now for the first time really use >> JSF2 functionality, and thus it would not be possible to >> use OWB with JSF-1 >> >>>applications anymore >> >> Actually this is not correct observation. OWB does not >> depend on any JSF >> specific implementations. And you know that core OWB does >> not require any >> JSF library (Plugin model). You can use OWB with/without >> JSF. >> >> From JSF Perspective >> ---------------------------------------- >> Currently we are providing CDI Conversation Context via our >> "webbeans-jsf" >> module. This module has a dependency on "MyFaces >> 2.0.0-alpha API" as an >> optional because JSF libraries are provided at runtime via >> containers/developers. As you see, even webbeans-jsf module >> does not depend >> on any JSF implementation or specific JSF 1.2/2.0 API etc. >> Therefore we can >> put any JSF 1.2/2.0 related code here, because this module >> uses 2.0 API and >> 2.0 API is backward compatible with 1.2 API (Means that 1.2 >> APIs are >> contained in 2.0 API). If anyone would like to use our JSF >> 2.0 functionality >> (like ViewScoped), then he requires to add JSF 2.0 >> implementation libraries >> into his application class path. >> >> In summary, OWB is not related with JSF implementations. It >> uses JSF2 API, >> that is all. If anyone wants to use our JSF2 funtions, he >> has to provide >> runtime JSF2 libraries. >> >> For example, some JSF samples are currently run with JSF >> 2.0 libraries while >> some of them uses JSF 1.2 libraries. Both of them uses >> webbeans-impl and >> webbeans-jsf modules. >> >> From Extensions Perspective >> ------------------------------------------- >> But, it is reasonable for me that we can define >> "webbeans-extensions" module >> that is independent from CDI implementations. But I am not >> sure, whether ot >> not this module depend on any OWB specific code! >> >> >> Thanks; >> >> --Gurkan >> >> >> >> 2010/1/12 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> >> > Hi! >> > >> > I have coded the javax.faces.bean.ViewScoped handling >> and it turned out >> > that I do not need anything OWB special. So this i a >> completely CDI >> > independent portable implementation, and as such I'm >> in favour to _not_ add >> > it to openwebbeans-jsf but to a new 'extensions' >> module. >> > >> > This also has the side effect that we now for the >> first time really use >> > JSF2 functionality, and thus it would not be possible >> to use OWB with JSF-1 >> > applications anymore! But since I consider OWB + JSF-1 >> a very important >> > scenario (for making migration easier and due to the >> fact that there is >> > still no JSF-2 component taglib on the market!), I >> don't like to add this to >> > openwebbeans-jsf. >> > >> > This opens the general question on how we cope with >> JSF-1 vs JSF-2 in the >> > future. >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Gurkan Erdogdu >> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
