JBossDeveloper

Lincoln Baxter wrote on Mar 16, 2010 21:39:


Also, if any of you guys want to get involved in the development of said Seam 3 Faces module -- feel free, let me know! The SVN repo is located here(1) and should be buildable from now on ;) I had a little cleaning up to do when I took over / started over.

(1) http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/seam/modules/faces/trunk/

(2) http://seamframework.org/Documentation/Seam3FacesModuleDesignNotes

I'll emphasize that we are really be interested in your participation so that we can put our heads together on these, and other, JSF features. And thanks to Lincoln, the Seam 3 faces module is finally in shape to accommodate contributors :)

Lincoln Baxter wrote on Mar 16, 2010 21:35:


The preferred usage would be to avoid any and all JSF @...Scope annotations, certainly @ManagedBean should be avoided in all cases -- use @Named instead, but unfortunately with @ViewScoped and @FlashScoped, these are JSF specific features, and probably belong in the javax.faces namespace.

I wouldn't necessarily say unfortunately. It makes a lot of sense that scope annotations belong in the package of the technology in which the scope lives ;)

What you should avoid is the JSF managed bean facility (including the @javax.faces.bean.ManagedBean annotation. In fact, we are considering helping to guide you by placing a warning in the log (or more severe) if this annotation is found on a class...your feedback permitting of course.

When you think of Seam 3, think of small, portable, modular extensions to bridge the gap between CDI, and other JEE technologies such as JMS, JSF, EJB, JPA, and other helpful things :)

...but also think coordinated releases ~ every 6 months of a nice grouping of modules. With that said, it also gives our product team (or your product team) the flexibility to assemble logical modules into consumable bundles.

Lincoln Baxter wrote on Mar 16, 2010 21:39:


The SVN repo is located here(1) and should be buildable from now on ;)

I thought the JBoss team was moving to git or Mercurial???

Dan Allen wrote on Mar 17, 2010 02:49:


...but also think coordinated releases ~ every 6 months of a nice grouping of modules. With that said, it also gives our product team (or your product team) the flexibility to assemble logical modules into consumable bundles.

Is there a high-profile blog or article on jboss.org, etc.???  It seems like people are always in the dark about the plans and future of Seam framework.  By that I mean dates and delivarables (project plan, etc.) 

e.g. JBoss 6.0.0.-M1 includes these EE6 features (JSRs)

6.0.0.-M2 includes these EE6 features (JSRs)

what about Seam 3??

I guess the move to git or something is still on the table but has been pushed back due to lack of time. I asked Pete about it and he said Ngh, don't remind me and retreated to a monastery in Nepal ;-)

I thought the JBoss team was moving to git or Mercurial???

Yeah we're still talking about it. Will definitely be huge announcements when this happens. (Hopefully ;)

Thanks Lincoln and Dan, that was exactly the answer I was hoping for.

I will check out the - Seam 3 Faces - Scopes Support Code - and see what I can do with it.

Arbi Sookazian wrote on Mar 17, 2010 18:25:


Is there a high-profile blog or article on jboss.org, etc.???  It seems like people are always in the dark about the plans and future of Seam framework.  By that I mean dates and delivarables (project plan, etc.) 

what about Seam 3??

We are in the process of establishing this project plan right now. Please see the Seam 3 project status and direction page, which shows the work in progress.

I can't speak for JBoss AS or other JBoss projects.

Dan Allen wrote on Mar 17, 2010 02:49:

I wouldn't necessarily say unfortunately. It makes a lot of sense that scope annotations belong in the package of the technology in which the scope lives ;)

It is very disappointing that I have to include Seam into my CDI-JSF project just to do things that should just work.  A  CDI version of ViewScope should be available by default.  Dropping the ManagedBean facility for CDI would be much more attractive if the JSF features weren't lost!

Ryan Slominski wrote on Sep 16, 2011 09:36:


A  CDI version of ViewScope should be available by default.

Agreed. The absence of someting like the @ViewScope in the CDI specification is definitely a flow.

Marcos