Hi Leonardo,
The table itself is still valid, the only difference is the underlying
implementation, so we would have to make adjustments to reflect that. So
no it would not be moved to CDI specification as CDI would be the
enabler for this functionality, but the JSF runtime is still the
implementer.
Regards,
Manfred
On 10/6/14, 4:22 PM, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
> Hi
>
> I forgot to mention that if you let CDI handle #{facesContext}, what about
> #{viewRoot} or #{session} or all other objects that rely on FacesContext
> to be found? We have already big table in the spec that relies on that
> and if you take a look at the code the entry point is always FacesContext.
> Will this table be removed from JSF spec and moved to CDI?
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
>
>
> 2014-10-06 16:11 GMT-05:00 Leonardo Uribe<leonardo.uribe_at_irian.at>:
>> Hi Ed
>>
>> But still the change discussed here (let CDI manage #{facesContext} )
>> has its problems.
>>
>> Right now we have these methods:
>>
>> FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
>> // protected
>> FacesContext.setCurrentInstance(FacesContext instance);
>> FacesContext.getELContext();
>>
>> The problem is this: In JSF we are used to call
>> FacesContext.getCurrentInstance(), but on the ELResolver we take
>> the FacesContext instance from the ELContext. Yes, there is a
>> circular reference here. The default implementation of FacesContext
>> wraps ELContext and add the reference. That is preferred, because
>> it avoids calls to FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().
>>
>> Who knows this detail? JSF. Who is responsible for create and
>> destroy FacesContext? JSF. Who should have control over how
>> #{facesContext} is resolved? JSF.
>>
>> I don't see difficult to provide a CDI extension inside JSF to deal
>> with FacesContext problem. The only thing you need to realize is
>> you can use a wrapper or proxy, so the instance in the bean should
>> not be the same instance. To get the inner instance you can always
>> use getWrapped() method.
>>
>> I know it is easier just to burn the code inside CDI, but my question is
>> if this has really sense or not, from a design perspective. It just sounds
>> too inconvenient for me, because you are losing a lot of flexibility
>> in the implementation, and this is not something you must do inside
>> CDI, it is something where we can choose, and if we have an option,
>> why don't choose keep it under JSF control?.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>>
>> 2014-10-06 15:16 GMT-05:00 Edward Burns<edward.burns_at_oracle.com>:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:35:58 -0500, Leonardo Uribe<leonardo.uribe_at_irian.at> said:
>>> LU> The problem is we introduce a dependency in CDI for JSF, unless we get
>>>
>>> Well, we're not *introducing* a dependency. We are adding more weight
>>> to a dependency we already have.
>>>
>>> LU> There is no real advantage to do that. As far as I remember, CDI is an
>>> LU> optional dependency, even if there are classes in JSF that use CDI
>>> LU> api, you can run JSF without CDI. Does that will change with JSF 2.3?
>>>
>>> You are right that prior to JSF 2.3, it was possible to use a subset of
>>> JSF features on containers that did not provide CDI. We are indeed
>>> proposing to change that in JSF 2.3, making CDI required. This change
>>> is most strongly articulated in [1287-RedefineManagedBeansAsCDIBeans].
>>> In addition to this change, we are also requiring Java EE 8 and Java SE
>>> 8 in order to run JSF 2.3.
>>>
>>> We realize these two changes are departures to our decade old policy of
>>> lagging one version behind the platform. We reasoned that if people
>>> have stuck with JSF for this long, they would be willing to move up to
>>> EE 8 as well.
>>>
>>> LU> I think CDI provides a pluggable API that works for our needs. The
>>> LU> only thing that I miss about that API is that you can't control class
>>> LU> scanning, and that causes problems because application servers
>>> LU> sometimes need to customize that part.
>>>
>>> Yes, this is one of those areas that CDI hasn't fully addressed yet.
>>> However, we believe we can mitigate the impact of this by not even
>>> saying anything about CDI's pluggable API.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>> --
>>> | edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
>>> | 24 work days til Devoxx 2014