oki, I'll try to explain again: > cdi-jsf2-api
I'm _NOT_ going to implement some JSF api. Maybe we should name this jsf2-extensions-api? Please make a suggestion. What do I like to put into that module: Although there is a FlashScope defined in the spec, and this is _very_ usefull, there is _NO_ @FlashScoped annotation defined in the spec (ans therefore also not available in jsf-api). And there may be other very neat things we might add for supporting JSF-2 even better. We can also move this over to MyFaces if you like. Or even better to commons, because this would run on Mojarra and Weld also... So it's nothing OWB specific, it's only a good way to demonstrate the capabilities of the CDI spec. I also thought that I might contribute it to Seam, but Seam is LGPL, and I'm not sure if MyFaces or Geronimo could use that stuff later on ... 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, 1:58 PM > >>>well, he didn't say that > this package contains the full JSF API... > > I mean that any subset of JSF API. > > 2010/1/12 Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu > > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>>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 > > > Maybe I did not explain it better, but OWB uses > JSF2 not JSF 1.2. Look at > > > "trunk/pom.xml" and "webbeans-jsf/pom.xml". So, > there is no such a think > > > that "it uses JSF2 but OWB does not support it". > OWB uses JSF2 API not > > JSF > > > 1.2 or earlier. But we can still support > OWB with JSF 1.2 runtimes. For > > > example, we can add some property to > "openwebbeans.properties" like > > > > > > use.JSF2.extensions = true/false (default true) > > > > > > If developer wants to use OWB with JSF 1.2, it > defines > > > openwebbeans.properties file with > "use.JSF2.extensions=false", so we can > > > disable JSF2 extensions in JSF 1.2 environments. > > > > > >>>>What about introducing an own > 'extensions' module for parts which are > > not > > > OWB specific but would also work on other > containers? > > > +1, but this can be delayed. And it requires a > bit thinking :) > > > > > >>>>webbeans-extensions > > >>>> +- cdi-jsf2 > > >>>>> | +- cdi-jsf2-api (contains > e.g. a new @FlashScoped annotation) > > >>>> | +- cdi-jsf2-impl (contains > extensions for @ViewScoped + > > @FlashScoped) > > >>>> +- cdi-another > > > > > > I really hate this! We are not implementing JSF2 > specs, APIs etc. This is > > > provided by the JSF2 implementations. > > > > well, he didn't say that this package contains the > full JSF API... > > > > > > > > Therefore my comment on JSF extensions is that; > > > * Write JSF extensions in webbeans-jsf package > for the time being. Use > > > properties scenario (I explained) to disable this > extension in JSF 1.2 > > > environments. > > > > > > Thanks; > > > > > > --Gurkan > > > > > > 2010/1/12 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > > > >> 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 > > >> > > >> 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 > > >> +- cdi-jsf2 > > >> | +- cdi-jsf2-api (contains e.g. > a new @FlashScoped annotation) > > >> | +- cdi-jsf2-impl (contains > extensions for @ViewScoped + > > @FlashScoped) > > >> +- 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. > > >> And supporting @ViewScoped via CDI may be > part of the next JSF spec?... > > >> > > >> 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 > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Gurkan Erdogdu > > > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > > > > -- > Gurkan Erdogdu > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >
