Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [faces-dev] Modularizing Faces
  • From: Manfred Riem <m_riem@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:46:17 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=JZXl1421w4am1TKnlJunflTlxu2/Um+7zOScVDJZV90=; b=cy8N6rcqs09a5poFzkO8y1T10LfwN+Q0KM4kAwyhzfgfeCWLEBx+Tv00SKoa8ZBVjGlHlrUJyvGMbiFrDIKk/39ZPiCxX4qAbye6h7PY9yRAgkuXysv/86qYWjQoRfibfGZlj1/tJ0OdV+qShtS1xIliC4p4bXMf7GrJkUEa9bepDNqwhtqZNnAUsPCbFMMutZAjn5i8vzT+KgNf2S9rSY9d689Cf+b13He/9xDz7RPqdEENFn6badevCo4dBzVh974VTozuwqyPss6bsS20eG9YBgHNtgJB0WE78hR7ewgyiD46thqxPg6Mor/TvC7NFyK6hh7FB9hyRO5+CKCDGA==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=eL/2TzP/Oq3kdqIUFn1j2CGk/zF9jVs2PgBoernJYG/CcjLv4sI69fnYrP7vf4FZ+3mKw0be3wm45qL7k8QOhA+c8PBYPA5vHVhBdeDME52mH9UWJpmeL6DdJrkxtEFqcFnmGF5rj51gQf0B+ArUfk03zcth1xmWvo53pi0tTo62V90GWdP4ucJpJNu68pdrAgSh0uZyFs5GqsPxuKIY92XfRDPnPwi86ZjxkSGIP5e01cCnS3WsrQb6VHT+zFOKtzD5+AMLrBKPKHV8ubYKa+nPZ2kkqqp9h2V1D2OiMwoJZ6YiUwpITSaRHJoJ37QuhRz+Q6X9GZP3iiR6CcuSgA==
  • Delivered-to: faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-archive: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/private/faces-dev/>
  • List-help: <mailto:faces-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
  • List-subscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/faces-dev>, <mailto:faces-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/options/faces-dev>, <mailto:faces-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Thread-index: Adbt0Hh9eYpw2i7lSUyE+rlKVBohewAAglGAAAKYiuAAIZZSgAA3v7JgACSi1YAAojw8YA==
  • Thread-topic: [faces-dev] Modularizing Faces

Hi Thomas,

 

I know we do not have a scope for Flash but it really should have a proper scope.

And yes I am well aware that ConversationScope is in CDI and it really ought to be

in Faces. Flash (scope) has a quite different way of using it.

 

What resources? Have you allocated folks that I do not know about? I would love

to be able to allocate someone to something 😉 ….. in all seriousness this is

an open-source project and I am proposing to modularize the scopes and yes that

to me means I would be signing up for that work, hence why I am proposing it.

 

On your polling to get usage numbers …. You’ll hit confirmation bias almost

Immediately because you will get a very limited set of folks responding. I mentioned

it as a way of measuring as right now we really “know” only because of our own

observations.

 

All this work is for setting Faces up for a future where a) we have data to make

informed decisions and b) a structure that makes it a whole lot easier to go through

a deprecation/removal process and c) makes it easier for someone to pick up said

piece when we have removed it and they want to take it forward.

 

On the note of ui:repeat I really would want that one to disappear from history

as yes it is fraught with problems and has never formally been specified as each

Faces implementation could have delivered its own implementation that is not

compatible as there is no way to determine that.

 

Thanks!

 

Kind regards,

Manfred Riem

 

 

From: faces-dev <faces-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Thomas Andraschko
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 2:07 AM
To: faces developer discussions <faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [faces-dev] Modularizing Faces

 

Hi,

we don't even have a real scope for Flash. Also ConversationScope is inside CDI, not JSF.

Also isn't Flash something like RedirectScope?

Really, please don't get me wrong here, but i don't see a big benefit here.

We should put our scarce resources into something like this: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/faces-api/issues/1499

This is something that prevents users since JSF early days to correctly use validators inside ui:repeat.

 

If we need an analysis of which JSF scopes/features are used, we should just do a poll.

I also have like 10+ customers applications here and could do a simple analysis of used scopes.

I can however say: Flash, Conversation, Flow are almost unused.

Request, Session, View are really heavily used; some uses DeltaSpike WindowScope for a "session/tab" usecase.

 

Best regards,

Thomas

 

 

Virenfrei. www.avast.com

 

Am Mi., 20. Jan. 2021 um 16:46 Uhr schrieb Manfred Riem <m_riem@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

Hi Rudy,

 

A couple of things come to mind.

 

  1. Each scope would only be included when the customer actually wants to use it
  2. If you want to deliver an alternative implementation you can do so easily
  3. It would make sure the scope is only using public Faces / CDI APIs
  4. We could see how much each scope is used which helps to figure out where we should put our scarce resources go forward

 

And on your question of compliance that is a TCK testing aspect of things, which does not limit allowing this modular approach.

 

Thanks!

 

Kind regards,

Manfred Riem

 

From: faces-dev <faces-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Rudy De Busscher
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:02 AM
To: faces developer discussions <faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [faces-dev] Modularizing Faces

 

What is the benefit of having each scope in a separate module when they all need to be available to become a compliant implementation?

 

Rudy

 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 22:06, Manfred Riem <m_riem@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Arjan,

 

One could imagine a separate module for each of the following:

 

FlashScoped

ViewScoped

ConverationScoped

ClientWindowScoped (annotation is not there yet)

RedirectScoped (annotation is not there yet)

 

Thanks!

 

Kind regards,

Manfred Riem

 

From: faces-dev <faces-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of arjan tijms
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 12:46 PM
To: faces developer discussions <faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [faces-dev] Modularizing Faces

 

Hi,

 

Great idea! Any proposal for the modules we should have?

 

Kind regards,

Arjan Tijms

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:33 PM Manfred Riem <m_riem@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

Now that modules are becoming more and more mainstream is it time to consider create a modular Faces runtime?

 

Let me know your thoughts!

 

Thanks!

 

Kind regards,
Manfred Riem

 

_______________________________________________
faces-dev mailing list
faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/faces-dev

_______________________________________________
faces-dev mailing list
faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/faces-dev

_______________________________________________
faces-dev mailing list
faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/faces-dev


Back to the top