Oki, sounds good to me! Which things to start with?
As I already explained, there may be a few scopes which might ease the life of a JSF developer. Another area are interceptors. Doing a @Transactional interceptor is pretty easy. @Secured interceptor? just a few ideas... And who is doing the project setup? txs and LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [TOMAHAWK] CDI contributions to tomahawk? > To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org> > Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 1:43 AM > also +1 for a new extensions module! > > ..and I'd really like to contribute to that too :) > > Regards, > Jakob > > 2010/1/15 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > > +1 for a new extensions > module > regards,gerhard > > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > 2010/1/14 Matthias Wessendorf > <mat...@apache.org> > > > > Hey Mark, > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > wrote: > > > Hi folks! > > > > > > I'm working on the Apache Implementation of > JSR-299 OpenWebBeans and I'm looking forward to add more > support for JSF-2 via providing portable CDI extensions. > > > > > > I already implemented an Extension for the > javax.faces.beans.ViewScoped in our openwebbeans-jsf module, > but honestly think that this is not the right place, because > it is really CDI-container independent. Plus, I have a few > other ideas which may serve the Apache JSF community. > > > > > > > > > So, because those extensions are both JSF container > independent and also CDI container independent, what about > adding them to tomahawk-2 ? > > > > > > The extensions I have in mind are > > > > > > 1.) moving the CDI support for the @ViewScoped as > mentioned above from openwebbeans-jsf to tomahawk. > > > > > > 2.) a new @ViewConversationScoped. Usually > @ConversationScoped beans have the same lifecycle as > @RequestScoped beans if no Conversation#begin() will get > called in an action. Which means that one will always get a > fresh instance of a @ConversationScoped bean if e.g. the > validation fails before the begin() can be called. The > lifecycle of @ViewConversationScoped bean would begin with > the first view invocation and end at the end of the request > in which the conversation gets closed. > > > > > > > > > > that's neat; > > > > > > > 3.) a new @ViewRequestScoped. This is basically the > same as @ViewScoped, but the contextual instance will stay > available until the end of the request and will not get > destroyed after the action continues on a return > "nextPage";. This may be tricky if the following > view accesses the same bean as the previous view - any > suggestions on how this should behave are welcome. > > > > > > > > > > not sure I get that :-) > > > > > wdyt? > > > > > > a) is tomahawk the right place (at least for 2 and > 3)? > > > > No. > > Why not adding to here: > > https://svn.apache.org//repos/asf/myfaces/commons/ > > > > or > > > > https://svn.apache.org//repos/asf/myfaces/extensions/ > > > > That would make them also independent for a certain > component suite ;-) > > > > > b) would the functionality be useful for JSF-2 > developers? > > > > sounds useful to me! > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > txs and LieGrue, > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > > > >
