I have nothing against JSF, but it makes sense if there are some Web
Frameworks using different implementations or technologies for their
presentation, which may not need JSF at all. So whatever you call it
"Minimal" or "Web Light" sounds reasonable. I'm not sure, if I would even
include Bean Validation, while CDI has become a de facto standard for
Injection, except for a few cases like Spring where they use 330, but other
approaches on top of that...
Of course you get a +++ for Modularity, at least in the sense, somebody
also replied to Victor Grazi's QCon article the other day. Get Modularity
into Java 8, and modularize the next JDK on top of that. It seems too late
for EE7, but if SE 8 doesn't dare, it seems like a good idea for EE to
think about it to start with.
Werner
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Antonio Goncalves <
antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Like you, more and more I think JSF should not have been into the Web
> Profile. But as we can see today, there are more and more applications with
> NoSQL architecture without JPA/JTA. And we have more and more Web based
> apps. So, really, if we want a profile that doesn't take the UI and the
> persistence into account (ie. no JSF, JSP, JPA, JTA, EJB Lite)... then,
> there is only Servlet, CDI and Bean Validation left.
>
> With NoSQL applications coming strong (without JSF/JSP in mind) Java EE
> and the Web Profile will be seen as bloated and Tomcat/Jetty will remain
> the preferred app server for deploying "modern applications".
>
> My 2 cents
> Antonio
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Jim Knutson <knutson_at_us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote on 06/29/2012
>> 04:34:31 PM:
>>
>> > I've spent the week migrating a JSF 1.2 application running on
>> > Tomcat to JBoss 6 EAP (which comes with JSF 2.0). Now I'm trying to
>> > run an application with JAX-RS 2.0 running on GlassFish 3.x (which
>> > comes with JAX-RS 1.1). On both cases, it's hell.
>>
>>
>> That's one of the reasons I didn't want JSF as part of the Web Profile,
>> but it's
>> too late now.
>>
>> I still say that a minimal profile with just the servlet container is not
>> a
>> platform. There's no value in defining a platform that has next to
>> nothing
>> in it. You basically can't count on anything being there and you are
>> forced
>> into building your own server or bundling everything in the app.
>>
>> The only reasonable chance we have to solve the integration problem has
>> been
>> to include modularity in the architecture. I've been saying this for
>> several
>> releases now and we are yet again putting it off.
>>
>> I'm not interested in a minimal profile hack.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jim Knutson
>> WebSphere Java EE Architect
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
> Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>
>