>>>I think we will start hacking on the feature and if we hit the point of no return we should create an own module. We could definitely create a new package for unique JSF2 features if we will have under webbeans-jsf project. So management and configuration are much more easy with having one JSF module.
2009/12/17 Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > What I mean is that, > > Our code base has nothing regarding to JSF 1.2 like other JSF > Frameworks/Tools etc. do. > > We have just implemented 2 class for conversation service > > 1* WebBeansPhase Listener --> For restore conversations > 2* Custom View Handler --> For adding cid to view handler > > Both of them work on any JSF1.2 or JSF2 implementation. > > Therefore it is not rational to define new jsf2 project from my point of > view. If we were implementing lots of code unique to JSF 1.2 then it will be > reasonable to define new JSF2 project but we did not. Actually it is > meaningless for me to separate JSF 1.2 and JSF 2. > > We must not think of such a backward compatibility with JSF 1.2 etc because > we have been implementing Java EE 6 defined JSR-299 specification. > > > --Gurkan > > 2009/12/17 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >> Gurkan, >> >> I was not talking about special products, I also meant the API and I >> mentioned RichFaces-3.3.2 only as an example. You can google for the >> incompatibility problems. >> >> Matter of fact: >> .) EE6 WebProfile defines JSF-2, so from this point I'm with you >> >> But: >> .) there is no full stack for JSF-2 on the market currently (the component >> libraries are missing, since they are mostly incompatible) >> Plus, there will be lot old projects which still use JSF-1.2 but may like >> to use OWB for new extensions. >> >> and as such: >> .) providing an easy migration path to EE6 by allowing to use JSF-1.2 + >> OWB would imho be a pretty nice goodie. >> >> I don't think it will confuse users if they have a choice between a >> JSF-1.2 and a JSF-2 plugin if we explain the differences in the >> documentation. >> I think we will start hacking on the feature and if we hit the point of no >> return we should create an own module. >> >> >> wdyt? >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> schrieb am Do, 17.12.2009: >> >> > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> >> > Betreff: Re: Integration of JSF2 specific API calls >> > An: [email protected] >> > Datum: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2009, 10:03 >> > Hey Mark, >> > >> > >>E.g. try running RichFaces-3.3.2 on a JSF-2 >> > container ;) >> > Java EE standards do not depend on any special product! >> > Standards talk about >> > API. >> > >> > >>In JSF-1.2 there was no standardised ajax handling, >> > so we would have no >> > chance to use those features in a portable fashion. >> > JSR-299 is contained in Java EE 6. Java EE 6 defines JSF2 >> > and when we talk >> > about JSF functionality, it means JSF2 not JSF1.2 or >> > earlier. >> > We wrote a little JSF code for conversations and at that >> > time there was no >> > offical MyFaces JSF2 API to use. Now there is one and we >> > will update our pom >> > to use MyFaces JSF2 and we will go ahead with it. In fact, >> > our codes in >> > webbeans-jsf must work within JSF2. Moreover, JSF2 is >> > compatible with JSF1.2 >> > as written in Java EE 6 specification. >> > >> > So all functionality must go into package webbeans-jsf. >> > There is no need to >> > create extra project modules that confuses developers >> > minds. >> > >> > Thnks; >> > >> > --Gurkan >> > >> > 2009/12/17 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> > >> > > > JSF2 is backward compatible >> > > >> > > Not when it comes to the details! >> > > E.g. try running RichFaces-3.3.2 on a JSF-2 container >> > ;) >> > > >> > > There have been a few changes which allows us to >> > create better support for >> > > JSF2, mostly in the AJAX area. In JSF-1.2 there was no >> > standardised ajax >> > > handling, so we would have no chance to use those >> > features in a portable >> > > fashion. >> > > >> > > LieGrue, >> > > strub >> > > >> > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> >> > schrieb am Do, 17.12.2009: >> > > >> > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> >> > > > Betreff: Re: Integration of JSF2 specific API >> > calls >> > > > An: [email protected] >> > > > Datum: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2009, 9:50 >> > > > >>>Id favour a >> > > > webbeans-jsf2, I think that's more future proof. >> > > > I think that there is no need to define extra >> > jsf >> > > > module/project. There is >> > > > no such a thing that "You could use it in JSF >> > 1.2 but >> > > > not JSF2 or vice >> > > > versa". We support JSF2 and JSF2 is backward >> > compatible. >> > > > But, if we really >> > > > emphasize that the code is related with "JSF2", >> > we can >> > > > create a package with >> > > > named "jsf2" in webbeans-jsf project. >> > > > >> > > > Thanks; >> > > > >> > > > --Gurkan >> > > > >> > > > 2009/12/17 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> > > > >> > > > > cool! >> > > > > >> > > > > Id favour a webbeans-jsf2, I think that's >> > more future >> > > > proof. >> > > > > >> > > > > And as Gurkan already said: please attach >> > the patch as >> > > > owb-171-patch.rfc in >> > > > > Jira. >> > > > > >> > > > > txs and LieGrue, >> > > > > strub >> > > > > >> > > > > --- Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> >> > > > schrieb am Do, >> > > > > 17.12.2009: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Von: Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> >> > > > > > Betreff: Integration of JSF2 specific >> > API calls >> > > > > > An: [email protected] >> > > > > > Datum: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 2009, >> > 2:24 >> > > > > > Back in business. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I am currently working on a patch for >> > OWB-171. >> > > > Besides some >> > > > > > cleanups I have refactored the code: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Conversation is request scoped and >> > solely created >> > > > or >> > > > > > restored by ConversationBean which >> > delegates the >> > > > later one >> > > > > > to the ConversationManager. >> > WebBeansPhaseListener >> > > > is only >> > > > > > responsible for retrieving and handling >> > the >> > > > > > ConversationContext. Conversation is >> > only >> > > > restored using the >> > > > > > "cid" request parameter and not the >> > > > > > UIViewRoot's attributes, because the >> > view is >> > > > only >> > > > > > accessible after restore view phase. >> > The >> > > > restored >> > > > > > conversation (and it's context of >> > course) must >> > > > actually >> > > > > > exist for restoring the view. This >> > chicken or egg >> > > > problem >> > > > > > was the reason not to store the the cid >> > in the >> > > > view's >> > > > > > attributes, because restoring these >> > attributes >> > > > actually >> > > > > > needs restoring the conversation >> > beforehand. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > There is still an issue with the >> > jsf2-example: In >> > > > case of >> > > > > > ajax requests which start a long >> > running >> > > > conversation, all >> > > > > > form's action attributes needs to be >> > updated to >> > > > reflect >> > > > > > the current active conversation for >> > following >> > > > request. This >> > > > > > could be done using JSF2 specific API >> > features. >> > > > At the >> > > > > > moment webbeans-impl is purely compiled >> > against >> > > > the JSF 1.2 >> > > > > > API. Without the necessary abstraction >> > there is >> > > > no chance to >> > > > > > get the JSF2 specific ajax >> > functionality working >> > > > again. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I have attached the patch to this mail >> > and not to >> > > > the >> > > > > > issue, because the patch is not meant >> > for >> > > > inclusion yet, but >> > > > > > for testing purposes. Integration it >> > and >> > > > rerunning the >> > > > > > jsf2-example points out my problem. If >> > you >> > > > disable ajax by >> > > > > > disabling javascript in your browser >> > e.g. the >> > > > conversation >> > > > > > example is working, because in this >> > case the full >> > > > page with >> > > > > > updated form's action urls is rendered >> > during >> > > > each >> > > > > > action invocation. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Last but not least: Do you guys have a >> > glue how >> > > > JSF2 >> > > > > > specific extension for conversation >> > handling >> > > > should be >> > > > > > integrated? I supose either adding >> > another >> > > > project >> > > > > > (webbeans-jsf2 e.g.) or updating the >> > JSF API (not >> > > > impl) >> > > > > > version to 2.x and making sure, we are >> > loading >> > > > JSF2 specific >> > > > > > classes only for this ajax purpose. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > good night, Sven >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > __________________________________________________ >> > > > > Do You Yahoo!? >> > > > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt >> > über einen >> > > > herausragenden Schutz >> > > > > gegen Massenmails. >> > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Gurkan Erdogdu >> > > > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > > > >> > > >> > > __________________________________________________ >> > > Do You Yahoo!? >> > > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen >> > herausragenden Schutz >> > > gegen Massenmails. >> > > http://mail.yahoo.com >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Gurkan Erdogdu >> > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com >> > >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz >> gegen Massenmails. >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> > > > > -- > Gurkan Erdogdu > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com > -- Gurkan Erdogdu http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
