no, that's a GREAT idea! :)
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> wrote: > It is a good idea. > > 2009/12/18 Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> > >> I also thought about migrating all JSF compile time depend classes from >> webbeans-impl to webbeans-jsf for a clearer seperation. wdyt? >> >> br, Sven >> >> 2009/12/17 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> >> > Yes we can start that way. >> > >> > But having 2 modules would have the benefit that we can define the >> > corresponding dependencies and thus make sure that we do not use 'newer' >> > features at compile time. >> > >> > 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, 10:49 >> > > >>>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 >> > > >> > >> > __________________________________________________ >> > 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 >
