Re: Issue with new validation scheme in HEAD

From: Adam Winer <>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:04:40 -0700

IMO, Shale is wrong here, and always has been. The code
relies on non-portable behavior.

Shale remoting can work around this by:
  - Changing managed bean names to meet the schema
  - Adding a custom VariableResolver/ELResolver to handle
    mapping the old names to the new objects

-- Adam

Imre O▀wald wrote:
> These are all valid points (especially the hierarchies one, concerning the
> developer confusion, I think most of the managed-beans with 'dots' in their
> names are normally not meant to be used in EL).
> IMHO the problem is, that shale-remoting (which contains a managed-bean
> with dots in its name) is used by other frameworks, so all these have to be
> updated too. And a application-developer has to be aware, that if he
> updates
> to the next RI-1.2 his application could break.
> Probably having a relaxed schema for 1.0/1.1 configs would then be the
> way to go?
> -- Imre
> On 17.05.2007, at 19:03, Adam Winer wrote:
>> IMO, the original intent was always to support strict bean
>> names. Period should be reserved. For one reason, it could be
>> used later for creating hierarchies of beans. I also think it's
>> extremely confusing if developers type a managed bean name like
>> "" but:
>> DOES WORK #{requestScope['']}
>> I can't think of an EL syntax that will retrieve one
>> of these beans without knowing the scope its in.
>> I also remember a recent bug filed over here at Oracle
>> where a user had a managed bean named something like
>> "foo-bar". Of course, #{foo-bar} means "foo minus bar".
>> I think Shale should change.
>> -- Adam
>> Ryan Lubke wrote:
>>> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2007 08:32:16 -0700
>>>> Ryan Lubke <Ryan.Lubke_at_Sun.COM> wrote (quoting Craig):
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> The spec language doesn't say anything, but the JSF 1.1 DTD comment
>>>>> regarding <managed-bean-name> includes the comment 'It must be of
>>>>> type "Identifier"', which references back to a "type description"
>>>>> above claiming that the content must conform to the syntax of a valid
>>>>> Java identifier. I suspect that, when this DTD was translated into a
>>>>> schema, this requirement was taken literally.
>>>>> That creates an interesting backwards compatibility problem for
>>>>> Shale, but also an interesting spec question regarding backwards
>>>>> compatibility ... the RI for 1.2 is enforcing a requirement that the
>>>>> RI for 1.1 did not enforce, which could be argued is a breakage.
>>>>> But, in the mean time, I'm going to look at what the impact would be
>>>>> of correcting these names in Shale.
>>>>> We haven't released these changes yet, so this has no immediate
>>>>> impact, but it would be good to get a discussion going on this and
>>>>> figure out what should be done.
>>>>> For those of you on the EG, what do you think? Should the 1.2 schema
>>>>> be relaxed?
>>>> Not personally on the EG, but relaxing the schema has my vote, 110%.
>>>> No downside that I can see, and that behavior is, well, kind of
>>>> obnoxious. :-)
>>> EG or not, all feedback is welcome. The ultimate decision of course
>>> is with them.
>>>> - DML
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail: