JSR-314 Disbanded With a Gap in Succession
Jay Balunas, a core JBoss developer and project lead for RichFaces blogged today about Red Hat's concern over the disbanding of the JSF expert group, under the JCP specification JSR-314, by Oracle. Balunas said on the JBoss developer blog that, "Oracle/Sun's decision to disband the JSF expert group (JSR-314) with no successor JSR filed under which to develop future revisions of JSF is disappointing."
According to Balunas, the expert group was still very active in their communication and development, and he doesn't believe that dissolution of the group was necessary. He says that it will now be "very difficult" to continue supporting the Java Server Faces specification without an official JSF and EG in the JCP, mainly because there are no longer intellectual property and governance guarantees involved in JSF development if there is no current or successor JSR for JSF.

While JBoss develops component libraries for the JSF 2.0 specification, they are finding areas that need to be changed in the specification, but now that there is no JSR, those changes have to be pushed to a future specification in order to be standardized. Balunas said, "Take for example #658 which deals with a problem with the PartialViewContext and how component libraries can extend it without breaking other component libraries. The RichFaces team has provided a draft patch to resolve this (thanks Nick) , however due to timing this will not be included in JSF 2.1."
In August, JBoss developers Dan Allen, Lincoln Baxter, III and Pete Muir talked about the need for a JSF 2.1 JSR or some other successor to JSF 2.0:
Because there's no timeframe on when a JSR will form for JSF 2.2+, the Seam and RichFaces developers will keep making features that users need, but now some of those features may end up drifting outside of the JSF specification. View Actions, for example, will be implemented in Seam Faces instead of the specification. RichFaces developers will continue their ongoing discussions with other JSF libraries (IceFaces, PrimeFaces, etc.) about how to deal with the issues caused by JSR-314's dissolution.
You can read Jay Balunas's blog here. You can also read Dan Allen's letter to the JSR-314 mailing list.
According to Balunas, the expert group was still very active in their communication and development, and he doesn't believe that dissolution of the group was necessary. He says that it will now be "very difficult" to continue supporting the Java Server Faces specification without an official JSF and EG in the JCP, mainly because there are no longer intellectual property and governance guarantees involved in JSF development if there is no current or successor JSR for JSF.

While JBoss develops component libraries for the JSF 2.0 specification, they are finding areas that need to be changed in the specification, but now that there is no JSR, those changes have to be pushed to a future specification in order to be standardized. Balunas said, "Take for example #658 which deals with a problem with the PartialViewContext and how component libraries can extend it without breaking other component libraries. The RichFaces team has provided a draft patch to resolve this (thanks Nick) , however due to timing this will not be included in JSF 2.1."
In August, JBoss developers Dan Allen, Lincoln Baxter, III and Pete Muir talked about the need for a JSF 2.1 JSR or some other successor to JSF 2.0:
Our participation in the development of JSF 2.1 is contingent upon the submission of a new JSR and approval of our request to become an EG member of that specification, for which we now call. If we're going to improve JSF, it needs to be a sincere commitment to do what needs to be done within an open JCP process.
Because there's no timeframe on when a JSR will form for JSF 2.2+, the Seam and RichFaces developers will keep making features that users need, but now some of those features may end up drifting outside of the JSF specification. View Actions, for example, will be implemented in Seam Faces instead of the specification. RichFaces developers will continue their ongoing discussions with other JSF libraries (IceFaces, PrimeFaces, etc.) about how to deal with the issues caused by JSR-314's dissolution.
You can read Jay Balunas's blog here. You can also read Dan Allen's letter to the JSR-314 mailing list.
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)





Comments
Jonathan Fisher replied on Mon, 2010/10/25 - 4:49pm
eduardo pelegri... replied on Mon, 2010/10/25 - 6:33pm
The normal operating process for the JCP (under revision 2.7) is described in the JCP web site [1]. From there, in section 3.5:
>>
3.5 FINAL RELEASE
Specifications that are approved by the EC during the Final Approval Ballot (or the reconsideration ballot) will be posted by the PMO on the JCP Web Site and an announcement made to both Members and the public. Upon Final Release, the Expert Group will have completed its work and disbands. The Spec Lead will typically be the Maintenance Lead and may call upon Expert Group members and others for aid in that role.
>>
The normal process after a JSR is to have some small work done as a maintance release and to do larger work as a new JSR. The timing of when to start the new JSR will vary and may depend on multiple reasons - in particular, right now we are in the middle of a JCP EC election, and, as everybody knows, Oracle has indicated its plans to submit very soon the JSRs for Java SE 7 and Java SE 8.
[1]http://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2
Ryan De Laplante replied on Mon, 2010/10/25 - 6:52pm
D Wuysan replied on Mon, 2010/10/25 - 7:41pm
hantsy bai replied on Mon, 2010/10/25 - 8:18pm
in response to: rdelaplante
Ryan De Laplante replied on Mon, 2010/10/25 - 9:31pm
in response to: hantsy
According to the jsr-314-open mailing list, JCP Maintenance Review for JSF 2.1 ended on October 22nd. I haven't been following it, so I don't know for sure, but I think it's mostly tightening up the specification. 2.2 will be new features.
Ryan De Laplante replied on Tue, 2010/10/26 - 8:12am