+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. >
