Arjan,
To answer you question about why use action based MVC please consider this
quote from a post on stackoverflow.
--Start--
Some may opt that the major disadvantage of JSF is that it allows very
little fine-grained control over the generated HTML/CSS/JS. That's not
JSF's own, that's just because it's a *component based* MVC framework, not
a *request (action) based* MVC framework. If a high degree of controlling
the HTML/CSS/JS is your major requirement when considering a MVC framework,
then you should already not be looking at a component based MVC framework,
but at a request based MVC framework like Spring MVC
<
http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/3.0.x/reference/mvc.html>. You
only need to take into account that you've to write all that HTML/CSS/JS
boilerplate yourself.
--End--
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3623911/what-are-the-main-disadvantages-of-java-server-faces-2-0/
Joshua Wilson
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:41 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Reza Rahman <Reza.Rahman_at_oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have to admit I personally think we could have worded the survey a
>> bit better. MVC was in fact the wrong term to use in hindsight. An action
>> oriented framework would have been more accurate.
>>
>
> As a matter of fact, one of the very earliest wording from the EE EG did
> use the term "action-oriented web framework", see
> https://java.net/downloads/javaee-spec/JavaEE-EG-meeting-results.pdf :
>
> Java EE 8 Idea
> JAX-RS MVC
>
> * Action-oriented web framework.
> * Do we really need another standard web framework?
> * Would this be The One?
>
> Such a small amount of text, but it does say so much already. It clearly
> mentions that it's about action-oriented, and it poses the questions about
> whether a fullstack framework like Java EE really needs two standard web
> frameworks and whether this new one should be The One. I interpreted this
> last question as wondering whether it would ultimately replace JSF (maybe
> that interpretation is not correct, it's just an interpretation).
>
>
>
>> That being said, I do think from the comments to the survey that the
>> respondents actually understood exactly what we meant.
>>
>
> That may be true indeed. In a way I think this is unfortunate though, as
> now Java EE too is more or less "helping" the increasingly common
> perception that MVC is strictly (or mostly) about the way Spring MVC has
> been doing MVC.
>
>
>> In fact, there may be sound reasons to still carry forward the MVC term
>> with this effort if we decide to go forward with it.
>>
>
> From a marketing / PR point of view I can surely understand the reasoning.
> Both Spring MVC and ASP.NET MVC that use this specific model are well
> known names. Spring MVC, ASP.NET MVC, Java EE MVC... I agree it does have
> a certain ring to it ;)
>
> But from a technical point of view, especially for someone who has done
> the more classic MVC (as introduced by smalltalk and as used in various
> desktop toolkits) I'm not the biggest fan of this.
>
>
>> An additional value to keeping JSF at arms length in this particular case
>> is that the users of this new solution are likely to be averse to JSF in
>> the first place, potentially needlessly limiting the success of the effort.
>>
>
> I certainly recognize this sentiment and there absolutely is an element of
> truth to it. On the other hand there seems to be a similar kind of aversion
> among certain groups of people to the names "Java EE", "Oracle" and in fact
> "Java" in general. Case in point; read the comments posted for many
> Java/Java EE/Oracle related articles posted at say /r/programming at Reddit
> or hackers news. Naturally we would not want to keep any of those names at
> arms length. Instead, I think our common goal is to improve Java and Java
> EE in any way we can, and stress the point over and over again how much
> those technologies improved and how little of the old criticises still hold.
>
> For Java, Java EE and JSF I see the fruits of this everywhere. Half a
> decade ago they were all pretty much dirty words in the blogosphere. These
> days there are as mentioned above people averse to these technologies, but
> also an increasing amount of people defending it. A few years ago there
> would be a crowd of say 15 people attacking Java EE on one of the many
> Spring vs Java EE wars at TheServerSide and maybe one lone person sticking
> up for Java EE, while now on similar discussions at e.g. Reddit it's more
> like halve of the community sticking up for Java EE. A similar thing holds
> for JSF. Some 5 years ago many people were attacking JSF in discussions,
> these days at least half of the community or more is backing JSF. In recent
> discussions at places like Reddit again I'd say it's more like 1 or 2
> people attacking JSF, with 4 or 5 defending it. It's quite a remarkable
> difference.
>
>
>
>> I say this honestly from the perspective of a long time supporter of the
>> JSF ecosystem that would still likely never choose to use an action
>> oriented framework myself. The practical reality in this case is that the
>> voice of the community may be unwise to not take very seriously.
>>
>
> Absolutely!
>
> When the community said that EJB was too complicated with its myriad of
> required interfaces to implement, it was a good thing that the EG listened
> and removed that requirement. When the community said that it's
> unacceptable that JSF was so totally focussed on POST, it was a good that
> that the EG made GET first class as well in JSF.
>
> With the action-oriented effort it's a bit less clear IMHO. If you look at
> the amount of posts spend on this topic already, then I think it's maybe
> one of the most discussed topics ever since these kinds of discussions were
> held publicly. Yet, I still haven't seen a really clear example of why the
> action-oriented model is needed.
>
> I'm absolutely not saying that the model is not needed, just that there
> haven't been any examples posted about use cases that work well for
> action-oriented and don't work well for MVC pull. Up until now it mostly
> has been the case of a "we need action-oriented" and less about "with
> action-oriented you can do [this and that] without needing to do [such and
> so]", or "for this use case you need 100 lines of code with MVC pull and
> only 20 lines of code with action-oriented", etc.
>
> With EJB Entity Beans vs JPA for instance these examples were very clear.
> I still hope to see some clear example for action-oriented.
>
> Regards,
> Arjan
>
>
>
>>
>> Please note that any views expressed here are my own and may not
>> necessarily reflect the position of Oracle as a company.
>>
>>
>> On 6/30/2014 10:55 AM, arjan tijms wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hold on. I don't like you making the assumptions about me kind of
>>> dismissing that the conversation about the intersection between JAX-RS and
>>> JSF should take place. Neither I like you quoting single lines from my
>>> earlier comments which loses the context.
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry if I misquoted you. I just tried to keep the amounts of
>> quoted text to a minimal.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're saying here is that
>>>> you
>>>> don't care whether JSF will use JAX-RS as a foundation or not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You got it wrong. Let me clarify: I do not mind if Java EE developers
>>> working with JAX-RS will start using JSF for the MVC work or not once the
>>> JAX-RS MVC work is done, and presumably JSF becoming a de-facto 'consumer'
>>> of JAX-RS MVC.
>>
>>
>> Okay, that's indeed what I thought you were saying. Thanks for the
>> clarification though ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>> That is not important for me. What is important for me is that I or
>>> other users can work with JAX-RS MVC without having to depend on JSF
>>
>>
>> So this is the part I guess we just have different opinions about. That
>> doesn't matter of course, since if we all agreed with each other from the
>> get-go there wouldn't be much discussion needed, would there? Let's agree
>> that we disagree on this specific part.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To sum up I propose to take the following into account:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Just "MVC" is too broad
>>>> 2. Use "MVC push"/"action oriented" for what Spring MVC does
>>>> 3. Use "MVC pull" for what JSF does
>>>>
>>>> Would that make things more clear?
>>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK we have not started a technical discussion yet and as such I'm
>>> not sure why are we talking about these technical distinctions here
>>>
>>
>> Well, the general discussion about this has started (as we're having
>> this discussion now). I don't think it's necessary for the discussion to
>> become deeply technical in order to make this subtle but important
>> distinction.
>>
>> In much of the communication towards the user, e.g. via the Java EE 8
>> survey, it's now communicated that Java EE 8 will either get "an MVC
>> framework" or will get "an additional MVC framework". For existing Java EE
>> users this may sound confusing. You can either interpret it as saying that
>> JSF is thus not an MVC framework,or wonder why two of the same things are
>> needed.
>>
>> The simple answer is that JSF IS an MVC framework too, but of a
>> different kind, and that the new work is not about an identical thing to
>> JSF but a different kind of MVC. Claiming MVC to be solely about the kind
>> of MVC that Spring MVC does is IMHO not correct.
>>
>> Much of this confusion can be avoided by consistently talking about MVC
>> push or action oriented. Even without going into the technical details I
>> think we can agree that everything that's planned for JAX-RS MVC is about
>> the push / action oriented variety.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arjan
>>
>>
>>
>