Hi, I do not see the usage of openajax as critical, one really would
interfere with the jsf namespace anyway unless he wants to provide his own
implementation on one of the methods, so I assume we can safely remove it.
Werner
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com>wrote:
> Hello Volunteers,
>
> We were talking about Ajax on JSR-362 and I suggested they use OpenAjax
> over there like we do in JSF. I looked into it and here's what I found.
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:00:17 -0800, Edward Burns <
> edward.burns_at_oracle.com> said:
>
> EB> Hello Volunteers,
> EB> As promised, here is the text from the JSF spec about usage of OpenAjax
> EB> in the jsf.js file.
>
> EB> 8<---------------
>
> EB> 13.2 JavaScript Namespacing
>
> EB> JavaScript objects that are not enclosed within a namespace are global,
> EB> which means they run the risk of interfering, overriding and/or
> EB> clobbering previously defined JavaScript objects. This section defines
> EB> the requirements for implementations intending to use the JavaServer
> EB> Faces 2.0 JavaScript API.
>
> EB> The Open Ajax Alliance is an organization of leading vendors, open
> EB> source projects, and companies using Ajax. Their prime objective is to
> EB> accelerate customer success with Ajax, through the use of open
> EB> standards. The Open Ajax Registry is an industry-wide Ajax registration
> EB> authority managed by the OpenAjax Alliance. The Registry maintains
> EB> industry- wide lists of Ajax runtime libraries to help prevent object
> EB> collisions.
>
> EB> There is a top level namespace jsf that is registered with the Open
> Ajax
> EB> Alliance:
>
> EB> Java Ajax: {
> EB> namespaceURI:"http://www.sun.com",
> EB> version:"1.0",
> EB> globals_to_approve:["jsf"],
> EB> comments: "Used in the JSF 2.0 specification.",
> EB> specificationURI:"http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=316",
> EB> email: "jsfaces_at_sun.com"
> EB> }
>
> EB> [P1-start openajax registration]If the OpenAjax library is available,
> EB> libraries must register themselves using OpenAjax.registerLibrary() at
> EB> the time when the JavaScript files are fetched and parsed by the
> EB> browser\u2019s JavaScript engine. [P1-end]
>
> EB> if (typeof OpenAjax != "undefined" &&
> EB> typeof OpenAjax.hub.registerLibrary != "undefined") {
> EB> OpenAjax.hub.registerLibrary("jsf", "www.sun.com", "1.0",
> EB> null); }
>
> EB> --
> EB> 8<---------------
>
> EB> Unfortunately, I now see this text on the website:
>
> EB> "The following organizations were Members of OpenAjax Alliance at the
> EB> time OpenAjax Alliance terminated formal operations:" A little
> research
> EB> revealed this email about the termination:
>
> EB> http://openajax.org/pipermail/steeringcommittee/2012q4/001015.html
>
> EB> And this article, now nearly four years old.
>
> EB>
> https://devcentral.f5.com/articles/5-years-later-openajax-who#.UqdusoG7liw
>
> EB> Basically, it seems OpenAjax is dead. Anyone care to comment on
> whether
> EB> we should bother with it in JSR-362?
>
> My question here in this group is: should we remove our mention and
> usage of OpenAjax in the JSF spec?
>
> Ed
>
> --
>