Public Review release of JSR-245 and JSR-252 is now available for download. Here is the official announcement from the two expert groups:
We're pleased to announce the availability of the Public Review of the next versions of the specification for JavaServer Pages (JSP) and JavaServer Faces (Faces). JSP 2.1 is developed under JSR-245 and Faces 1.2 is developed under JSR-252. The two expert groups are working ogether to improve the alignment between these two powerful web presentation technologies. Building on the work that was accomplished with the Early Draft Review, this Public Review covers two additional areas that required better integration between JSP and Faces: - Tree Creation and Content Interweaving - Deferred expressions nested within iteration tags Please see Appendix E of the JSP spec and the Preface of the Faces spec to see details of what's changed.
To access the specifications: JSP 2.1 PR (JSR-245) http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/edr/jsr245/
Faces 1.2 PR (JSR-252)
http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/edr/jsr252/
While it is perfectly acceptable to use Faces
without using JSP, many people find their
productivity increases when using these two
technologies together.
I believe most of those people are Java developers. Web designers want pure HTML. Our development workflow wants pure HTML. Business people want pure HTML. If you want us to consider JSF, give us pure HTML template handlers.
I'd like to raise an issue that may be beyond the scope of Faces 1.2, but I think it's important.
The current Faces validation support is component centric. This is good, but we also need a standard approach for dealing with form level validation (validation that requires evaluating relationships between the states of multiple components). The current "hack" is to add a hidden field that is rendered after the other components... but this feels like a kludge to me.
Perhaps this could be addressed by adding the ability to associate a validator with the "form" component.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] JSP 2.1 and Faces 1.2 Public Review now available
Apr 15, 2005 8:25 AM
(reply 5
of 19) (In reply to
#3 )
Perhaps this could be addressed by adding the ability
to associate a validator with the "form" component.
Are there is no way to give Validator to a Form? This is sad! I was sure I can create my own CustomForm by extendind Form and give it the validator I need.
But what about creating my own validatable CustomComponent which will contain a group of other components and the validator I need for them?
Re: [ANNOUNCE] JSP 2.1 and Faces 1.2 Public Review now available
Apr 15, 2005 9:43 AM
(reply 8
of 19) (In reply to
#7 )
Mr Perlov,
I am aware there are a lot of people who like XML configurations. So I'm not asking to close this way. I'm asking to open another possibility for us old men who are stick with Java and afraid of XML hell.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] JSP 2.1 and Faces 1.2 Public Review now available
Apr 15, 2005 11:24 AM
(reply 9
of 19) (In reply to
#3 )
Yes, agreed!
Form based validation is very usefull.
Also, is it possible to validate not single component, but, for example several linked ones? For example, if one check is selected, we validate component A and B, and if one is not selected, we validate components C and D?
Best regards,
Andrew Sazonov
http://www.softamis.biz
Re: [ANNOUNCE] JSP 2.1 and Faces 1.2 Public Review now available
Apr 15, 2005 11:59 AM
(reply 11
of 19) (In reply to
#8 )
I am aware there are a lot of people who like XML
configurations. So I'm not asking to close this way.
I'm asking to open another possibility for us old men
who are stick with Java and afraid of XML hell.
Denis, I have checked your profile and it shows I are younger than me :)
So I'm sure some day you will love XML.
I'm intentionally asking not to open the way to make configurations in Java.
I believed that everythings have to be in XML including programming language itself.
For example, I don't like annotations in java 5 just because it's not right to do this kind of things without using xml based syntax.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] JSP 2.1 and Faces 1.2 Public Review now available
Apr 15, 2005 7:56 PM
(reply 13
of 19) (In reply to
#6 )
Why do you have to describe them in XML? At most you specify a manage-bean name and class. Anything more isn't really necessary unless you want to put default properties in the xml. But you don't have to.
Can you confirm reports that the Unified EL is still not going to allow method calls on Java objects?
This has had a major impact on Joda-Time http://joda-time.sourceforge.net (a replacement for all the date and calendar classes in the JDK). The JSP and JSF specs expect to get all of their date objects as java.util.Date. However, our classes do not extend Date, but instead provide a toDate() method for easy conversion. However, with the EL being so restrictive it cannot call the toDate() method, causing no end of trouble.
The mailing list thread is here:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=7037421&forum_id=8530
It really is incredibly narrow minded to block method calls from the EL. Joda-Time is just one of many projects that would benefit from allowing method calls. As it is, I will probably have to pollute the Joda-Time library by providing a getAsDate() method, which is frankly crap.
This topic has
19
replies
on
2
pages.
1
|
2
|
Next »
Email this Topic
Edit this Topic
