+1 I'm still on the daily snapshots, but only because the alpha announcement slipped under my radar :( As far as I can tell, MyFaces2 looks pretty promising and stable.
LieGrue, strub --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> schrieb am Sa, 19.12.2009: > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: Integration of JSF2 specific API calls > An: [email protected] > Datum: Samstag, 19. Dezember 2009, 1:55 > MyFaces 2 Alpha Release Maven > > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/myfaces/core/myfaces-api/2.0.0-alpha/ > > 2009/12/19 Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > > Also we have to update our poms for JSf2 > > > > 2009/12/19 Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > > > Just adding classes to webbeans-jsf project. > >> > >> For example you can add JSf2WebBeansListener etc. > >> > >> 2009/12/19 Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> > >> > >> Was there any agreement on the JSF2 topic? As far > as I remember two > >>> solutions were mentioned: > >>> > >>> 1. Move completely to JSF2, JSF1 is not > supported any more > >>> 2. Create an additional project for JSF2 > integration > >>> > >>> br, Sven > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2009/12/18 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> > +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 > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Gurkan Erdogdu > >> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.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
