+1 on removal,
Regards,
Cagatay Civici
PrimeFaces Lead
PrimeTek Informatics
www.primefaces.org
On Tuesday 17 December 2013 at 10:30, Bernd Müller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think we should remove it because it's awkward to build on "legacy"
> specs/systems.
>
> Bernd
>
> Am 16.12.2013 23:15, schrieb Edward Burns:
> > 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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (http://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