BTW my apologies for the JBoss AS/EAP bug with WAR_BUNDLES_JSF and
mojarra. We will fix that soon as part of an effort to add more JSF
provider flexibility. I would like to talk to you off list about 1.2
though. We include a 1.2 provider that should work if you configure it,
and it shouldn't be susceptible to the above bug.
On 7/2/12 11:44 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
> Good point, having a SPI would be brilliant for pluggability. I also
> understand Pete's point of view as classloading is still an issue with
> app servers. My fear is that we will still see "Tomcat-like"
> applications and "EE-like" application running on different app server
> vendors. But well, we have done that for many years now, a few extra
> won't hurt
>
> Antonio
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jason T. Greene <jason.greene_at_redhat.com
> <mailto:jason.greene_at_redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> I know what you are getting it, but I still want to stress that
> Modularity != Plugability, although it is a helpful tool in
> achieving it.
>
> The problem is that to integrate JSF fully and correctly in
> compliance with the EE spec you have to use non-standard integration
> hooks. Even with the RI (mojarra) those impl specific hooks have
> changed in a non-compatible way between minor versions. So for a
> container provider to support even multiple versions of one
> implementation, you have to implement integration code for each one.
>
> JPA did a good start with having an SPI (although it could be
> better, let the container do the bytecode analysis vs the provider).
> I am all for adding plugability SPIs, but the minimal profile is a
> no-go for me. Really all a minmal profile is, is just the serlet
> spec, and vendors can still release standalone servlet containers if
> they want. Calling the servlet spec a "Java EE Profile" wouldn't
> really change anything, other than maybe confuse people.
>
>
> On 6/29/12 4:46 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
>
> Antonio,
>
> Interesting idea. How big is the difference between what you
> propose and
> the Web Profile, e.g. the TomEE server meets?
>
> EE 7 could offer a limited set of Modularity, but when the
> decision was
> made to drop Modularity from the Java 7 Platform due to the
> complications and challenges, the OpenJDK team is facing up
> until this
> day, I was among the first to point out the negative impact this
> would
> have on EE to then Spec Lead Roberto, and others, particularly EC
> Members present.
> Further Modularity or additional profiles may only work if the
> foundation really became modular. We hope and trust that's going
> to be
> EE8 or any EE that can use Java (8) Modularity.
>
> Werner
>
> Am 29.06.2012 23:35 schrieb "Antonio Goncalves"
> <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
> <mailto:antonio.goncalves@__gmail.com
> <mailto:antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>>>:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Four years ago, when we were building Java EE 6, we had
> this idea of
> a minimal profile that Roberto blogged about
>
> (http://weblogs.java.net/blog/__robc/archive/2008/02/profiles___in_the.html
> <http://weblogs.java.net/blog/robc/archive/2008/02/profiles_in_the.html>).
> The idea was to standardise "Tomcat-like" application
> servers with a
> minimal profile containing Servlets and JSPs. So we would
> have had
> this "minimal" profile, the web profile and the full one.
> We mostly
> voted no on this minimal profile, and I was one of them.
>
> 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. This would be
> easier if I could have used a JBoss 6 EAP Minimal Profile (or a
> GlassFish 3.x Minimal Profile) and bundle my own external
> jars like
> I do with Tomcat. If we want applications to migrate to Java EE
> application servers, one ease of use would be to have just
> a servlet
> container. And it will give a nice migration plan to
> application :
> e.g. "migrate from Tomcat to JBoss Minimal profile, and
> then when
> you are used to your new application server, move to a Web
> Profile
> and start adding other Java EE modules".
>
> I think having a new "Minimal Profile" (a better name would
> be a
> "Servlet Profile" with just Servlets, EL and JSP) would
> increase
> modularity in application servers and help applications to
> migrate
> to Java EE.
>
> What would you think of introducing a new profile in Java
> EE 7 ?
>
> Antonio
>
>
>
> --
> Jason T. Greene
> JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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>
--
Jason T. Greene
JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat