+1 big one :) webbeans-impl should finally need no other dependencies than SE (maybe + the servlet_spec because that would be much work to sort it out)
LieGrue, strub --- Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr, 18.12.2009: > Von: Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: Integration of JSF2 specific API calls > An: [email protected] > Datum: Freitag, 18. Dezember 2009, 13:38 > 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 > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com
