Does anyone have a preference for the @ManagedProperty replacement name?
Same name but in the annotation package (where several other CDI qualifiers
now reside), so javax.faces.annotation.ManagedProperty.
Or use a different name, e.g. @EvaluateExpression?
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Neil Griffin <neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org
> wrote:
> +1 for the @ManagedProperty replacement. Thanks so much for working on
> this Arjan.
>
> > On May 26, 2016, at 11:07 AM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the support. I'll look into @ManagedProperty soon then.
> >
> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Josh Juneau <juneau001_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Thanks Arjan...no objections here! This is certainly going to help
> clarify things for those who are not familiar with the difference between
> Faces and CDI scopes.
> >
> > +1 on implementing a replacement for @ManagedProperty.
> >
> > Josh Juneau
> > juneau001_at_gmail.com
> > http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com
> > https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:13 AM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As there were no objections after a week, I went ahead and prepared the
> change set. It can be previewed here:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/jsf-spec/mojarra/commit/2f9e0152559d33324627c66209eb2511e03e20c0
> >
> > If there are no further objections I'd like to push this to java.net
> soon.
> >
> > One thing to note, there currently is no replacement for
> @ManagedProperty. I'd like to provide a simple one roughly based on
> Manfred's blog from a while back, but as a Bean<T> instead with the ability
> to inject into various types. See
> http://manorrock.com/blog/2013/11/01/jsf_tip_31_migrate_your_managedproperty_annotations.html
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Arjan Tijms
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:32 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Neil Griffin <
> neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org> wrote:
> > +1 for an API change, indicating that annotations from javax.faces.bean
> are deprecated.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > However, I recall a conversation with Manfred in which he suggested
> having the legacy Managed Bean Facility utilize CDI under-the-hood. I think
> we should not do that because it would create complications for the JSF
> Portlet Bridge since the scope/meaning of javax.faces.bean.RequestScoped
> and javax.enterprise.context.RequestScoped are not equal in a portlet
> environment.
> >
> > I remember that this idea was pitched, but we're not doing that as far
> as I know and I don't think there are any plans anymore to pursue that. So
> no worries ;) Thanks for the reminder!
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Arjan Tijms
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 19, 2016, at 5:12 AM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Bauke Scholtz <balusc_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > It's about time. I've already prepared the community for years that
> @ManagedBean and friends are going to be deprecated.
> > >
> > > +1 definitely.
> > >
> > > When mentioning alternative for @ManagedProperty, don't mention only
> @Inject but also explain @Produces possibility and all those new CDI
> qualifiers for JSF artifacts.
> > >
> > > Sure, thanks for the feedback. I'll prepare a changeset in the
> upstream/staging repo first, which everyone can look at and provide further
> feedback on if needed. If there are no objections I'll then push that
> changeset through to java.net.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Arjan Tijms
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers, B
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:44 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the support Michael en Paul :) I've created
> https://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-1417 in support
> of this.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Arjan Tijms
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Paul Nicolucci <pnicoluc_at_us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Paul Nicolucci
> > >
> > >
> > > <graycol.gif>Michael Müller ---05/18/2016 03:40:02 PM---+99999 (at
> least) This avoids a commonly Seen problem
> > >
> > > From: Michael Müller <michael.mueller_at_mueller-bruehl.de>
> > > To: jsr372-experts_at_javaserverfaces-spec-public.java.net
> > > Date: 05/18/2016 03:40 PM
> > > Subject: [jsr372-experts] Re: [jsr372-experts mirror] Deprecating
> types in javax.faces.bean package?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +99999 (at least)
> > >
> > > This avoids a commonly Seen problem
> > > --
> > > Herzliche Grüße, best regards
> > > Michael Müller
> > >
> > > Am 18. Mai 2016 20:43:11 MESZ, schrieb arjan tijms <
> arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As it's been clear for some time we're moving away from the JSF native
> managed bean facility, I'd like to propose deprecating all the types in the
> javax.faces.bean package via the @deprecated annotation and/or javadoc, and
> mention what the alternative is now.
> > >
> > > This would particularly be helpful with things like
> javax.faces.bean.RequestScoped vs javax.enterprise.context.RequestScoped,
> where people not rarely import the wrong version.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Arjan Tijms
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>