Technically, @ManagedProperty simply evaluates an EL expression and puts
the evaluated result in the field. You can really pass any EL expression in
the value such as
#{param.foo}, #{cookie.bar}, #{oneBean.someMap[otherBean.someKey]}, etc.
This is the same as programmatically invoking
Application#evaluateExpressionGet(). Class/method names must clearly
describe the behavior and therefore I find something like
@EvaluateExpression or perhaps @EvaluateEL more self-documenting. In CDI
the intented concept of "managed properties" is already covered by @Inject.
Cheers, B
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Josh Juneau <juneau001_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think it would confuse developers if the replacement were named
> differently? I would assume that those who would use the replacement may
> be modifying existing applications. That said, if the name were the same
> then it seems like it may be more obvious. If one is looking for the
> replacement to @ManagedProperty, it may not be as straight-forward if it
> were named differently.
>
> On the other hand, it could be confusing to have the same name carried
> forward. However, I think that it would not be any more confusing than the
> past couple of years where we've been dealing with CDI and Faces scopes
> that were named the same.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Josh Juneau
> juneau001_at_gmail.com
> http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com
> https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:49 AM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>