Hi Michael,
As described below what currently is being done by the JSF runtime will
continue to work if you do not choose to update your JSF application to
the 2.3 version.
If you do update you will need to start using CDI @Inject as anything
new will only be supporting using @Inject.
Regards,
Manfred
On 10/9/14, 9:23 AM, Michael Müller wrote:
> What about @Inject vs. @resource to let CDI vs. JSF do the work?
> --
> Herzliche Grüße, best regards
> Michael Müller
>
> Am 9. Oktober 2014 15:36:41 MESZ, schrieb manfred riem
> <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just a heads up I have reverted all the changes done so far, so now
> embarking on getting the changes done as described below.
>
> Thanks!
> Manfred
>
> On 10/8/14, 4:18 PM, manfred riem wrote:
>
> Hi all, After working on
> https://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-1311
> it has become clear to Ed and I that there is more work to be
> done so I have temporarily reverted the work done for 1311 and
> I will now describe what we think would be a good way forward.
> Use case #1 - Old applications prior to Servlet 4.0 / JSF 2.3
> Make sure this keeps working as usual without making it hard
> CDI dependent. Which means we are not going to change in the
> EL resolvers, the EL resolver chain or how the integration is
> currently done. This will maintain our backwards
> compatibility. Use case #2 - New application wanting to use
> Servlet 4.0 / JSF 2.3 1. Required to either have a web.xml
> with version 4.0 or a WEB-INF/faces-config.xml stating version
> 2.3, as this will activate the new behavior. 2. Let CDI do
> most of the EL resolving, which means adding producers for the
> old EL resolvers (e.g. ImplicitObject, Composite etc). 3.
> Rework the EL resolver chain to use the new CDI EL Resolver
> plus any other EL resolvers that we need. 4. Define the
> default producers in a javax.faces package so they are
> consistent between JSF implementations and allow for
> overriding. 5. By making it an opt-in the component vendor /
> developer will have to support the new requirements if they
> want to take advantage of these new capabilities. Comments,
> thoughts? Regards, Manfred
>
>
>