Thanks for doing this work...it is a great enhancement. I agree to keep
things simple for now...new enhancements can always be added later on, if
needed.
+1 for supporting EL evaluation. I could certainly see that being handy.
Josh Juneau
juneau001_at_gmail.com
http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com
https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:48 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi y'all,
>
> I've implemented the javax.faces.bean.ManagedProperty replacement. After
> some consideration I went for the @ManagedProperty name again. Not an easy
> choice, but alas.
>
> It's implemented here:
> https://github.com/jsf-spec/mojarra/commit/167374880e650c25ce4012364bfa8177d99e5b70
>
> And a test is available here:
> https://github.com/jsf-spec/mojarra/commit/72692c2204044dc4d14771485d2a8c0615e0e04a
>
> Principally you could add an almost endless amount of extra features to
> this, such as converters, default values (handy for #{param[...]} and what
> have you.
>
> To keeps things simple for now I didn't went for those extras.
>
> One thing I'm considering though is support for EL evaluation using the EL
> 3.0's ELProcessor / CDI's BeanManager#getELResolver combo. See e.g.
> https://github.com/javaee-security-spec/soteria/blob/master/impl/src/main/java/org/glassfish/soteria/cdi/RememberMeInterceptor.java#L201
>
> Advantage of having that is the ability to evaluate EL via injection when
> there's no FacesContext, e.g. when an application scoped bean is
> initialised during startup. Could be done via an attribute, e.g.
> "resolveByCDI", or automatically perhaps (no FacesContext? use CDI,
> otherwise use JSF).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Kind regards,
> Arjan Tijms
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Neil Griffin <
> neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org> wrote:
>
>> Since javax.faces.bean.ViewScoped has the same name as
>> javax.faces.view.ViewScoped, then for consistency I think it might be best
>> to keep the name as ManagedProperty. When given a choice by the IDE as to
>> which one to import, the developer will see a strikethrough for the
>> deprecated one and so it will be obvious which is the new one.
>>
>> > On May 26, 2016, at 12:01 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
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>