Mark Maybe words are not enough for technical discussions :) My advice is that for the time being, instead of creating api/impl/extensions new projects, you could implement those JSF things in webbeans-jsf folder.
After that we could look at implementation and I believe that we can decide more robust decision. Maybe we could define sandbox folder for prototyping implementations. Thanks; --Gurkan 2010/1/12 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > 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 > > > > > > -- Gurkan Erdogdu http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
