JSRs: Java Specification Requests
JSR ###: JavaServer Faces 2.2

This JSR is an update to the 2.1 version of the JavaServer Faces specification. This is the first major revision of the JavaServer Specification since JSR 314.

  Status: Oracle Internal Review              
  Stage       Start   Finish  
  Proposed Final Draft   Download page   October 2011
 (for JSF 2.0 this was 03 April 2009)
October 2011    
   
JCP version in use: 2.7
Java Specification Participation Agreement version in use: 2.0
Please direct comments on this JSR to: edward.burns@oracle.com
 
 
Specification Lead

Ed Burns   Oracle America, Inc. 
 
Expert Group
PENDING   PENDING   PENDING
 

Original Java Specification Request (JSR)

Identification | Request | Contributions

Section 1. Identification

Submitting Member: Oracle America, Inc.

Name of Contact Person: Ed Burns

E-Mail Address: edward.burns@oracle.com

Telephone Number: +1 407 458 0017

Fax Number: 1 407 294 2468


Specification Lead: Ed Burns

E-Mail Address: edward.burns@oracle.com

Telephone Number: +1 407 458 0017

Fax Number: + 1 407 294 2468


Initial Expert Group Membership:

TBD

Supporting this JSR:

TBD



Section 2: Request

2.1 Please describe the proposed Specification:

This JSR is a significant feature update that builds on the advances from the previous JSR for JavaServer Faces.

The high level goals from the previous iteration bear repeating here.

    This JSR will bring the best ideas in web application development to the Java EE platform. The Expert Group will be harvesting existing ideas that:

    • Maximize the productivity of the web application development experience, for graphical IDE and command-line developers.

    • Minimize the complexity of maintenance of the web application during its production lifetime.

Requirements are grouped into four major categories: Ease of Development, Portlet Integration, New Features and Fixes. Following are some initial requirements that will be prioritized and considered when the Expert Group convenes. Not all of these ideas will be in the final specification.

Ease of Development

Requirements in this category make developers more productive with JSF. Features in this category include, but are not limited to the following.

  • Eliminate the need for a tag handler class even for non-composite JSF components. Add a "tagName" attribute to the @FacesComponent attribute.

  • Make it so most of the configuration options can be changed at runtime without redeployment.

  • Introduce shorthand URLs for Facelet Taglibraries. For example, allow "cc" to be an alias for "http://java.sun.com/jsf/composite".

  • Make it so the cc:interface section in composite components is optional.

  • Enhance ProjectStage to contain DesignTime value.

  • Deployment enhancements. For example, allow jsf artifacts to be packaged and discovered as standard OSGi bundles, and provide way to discover the JSF spec version with which a JSF artifact complies.

  • All JSF lifecycle artifacts should be CDI-aware and support injection/JSR-299/JSR-330 (PhaseListeners, NavHandlers, Components, ActionListeners, everything.)

Portlet Integration

Requirements in this category support an implementation of the Portlet Bridge 2.0 specification [JSR-329] for JSF 2. In general, all the requirements relate to smoothing out the wrinkles in JSF 2 that arise when attempting to use JSF 2 features in a portlet runtime. Features in this category include, but are not limited to the following.

  • Component identification and Ajax

  • Bookmarkability

  • Make the composite component feature usable so a "component server" can be included in a portlet runtime such that portlets can use the components in context-dependent ways. This feature is known as "remote components" in the portlet community.

  • Security related changes necessary accomodate remote components

New Features

Requirements in this category stem from feedback from real world JSF users and are incremental improvements on the existing specification. This category includes fixes and updates to existing APIs. Features in this category include, but are not limited to the following.

  • Support for select HTML5 features, possibly including the following.

    • HTML5 Forms (Flow and Interactive content models)

    • HTML5 Heading and Sectioning content model

    • HTML5 Metadata content model

  • Component system enhancements, for example, add interfaces to javax.faces.component package, for example "form", "layout" and "stamping".

  • Lifecycle enhancements, for example Page actions: the ability to say, "when this page loads, invoke this action (via Ajax if necessary)." Also, support for the "synchronizer token" pattern (avoiding double submits).

  • A small number of new components, file upload, UIRepeat, BackButton

  • Event system enhancements. For example, the ability to install a listener for page navigation events. This would enable the familiar dialog, "You have unsaved changes in this page, are you sure you want to discard them?"

  • Security enhancements. For example, how to provide JAAS Authorization in JSF with Facelets, and specify cross site request forgery solution.

  • Accessibility enhancements, for example, support for WAI ARIA.

  • Flow Management. Frameworks like SpringWebFlow and Oracle ADF have had flow management for a long time. Consider standardizing it.

Fixes

Requirements in this category are fixes to features specified in an earlier release of the specification. Features in this category include, but are not limited to the following.

  • Deprecate "targets" concept from composite components.

  • UIData should support the collection interface rather than the List interface.

  • Better integration between ELContext used by JSP and Facelets

  • Multi-field validation

  • Separate the "build the tree" and "render the tree" processes into two separate lifecycle phases.

  • JSF-2 AJAX response needs default namespace declaration.

  • missing <f:behavior> (convenience) tag

2.2 What is the target Java platform? (i.e., desktop, server, personal, embedded, card, etc.)

JavaEE 6

2.3 The Executive Committees would like to ensure JSR submitters think about how their proposed technology relates to all of the Java platform editions. Please provide details here for which platform editions are being targeted by this JSR, and how this JSR has considered the relationship with the other platform editions.

This specification targets the Java EE 6 Platform. It will be based on the corresponding release of the Java SE platform.

2.4 Should this JSR be voted on by both Executive Committees?

No. Just the SE/EE Executive Committee.

2.5 What need of the Java community will be addressed by the proposed specification?

While JavaServer Faces has succeeded in becoming the standard way to build web application user interfaces while ensuring maximum container portability and minimizing vendor lock-in, the state of the art of web application user interface development has advanced significantly since the first major draft of the specification. The Java community finds itself in a similar situation to that in which the first version of the JavaServer Faces specification was initiated: Many great ideas but no standard specification that delivers them to developers and the marketplace. In fact, many of these great ideas are built on top of the JavaServer Faces Specification but, are not, themselves, standards. It is time to harvest these ideas and bring them to a wider audience in manner consistent with the rest of the Java Platform.

2.6 Why isn't this need met by existing specifications?

The problem domain of web application user interface and lifecycle development is not covered by any other JSR. This problem domain is squarely the purview of JavaServer Faces.

2.7 Please give a short description of the underlying technology or technologies:

See 2.1 above.

2.8 Is there a proposed package name for the API Specification? (i.e., javapi.something, org.something, etc.)

javax.faces

2.9 Does the proposed specification have any dependencies on specific operating systems, CPUs, or I/O devices that you know of?

No

2.10 Are there any security issues that cannot be addressed by the current security model?

The Java SE security model is perfectly sufficient for the needs of this specifiation. There will be security related features in the specification, but these will build on top of the current security model.

2.11 Are there any internationalization or localization issues?

Faces technology deals with internationalization and localization.

2.12 Are there any existing specifications that might be rendered obsolete, deprecated, or in need of revision as a result of this work?

No.

2.13 Please describe the anticipated schedule for the development of this specification.

  Stage       Start   Finish  
  Expert Group Formation       Q2CY2011   Q2CY2011  
  Early Draft Review       Q3CY2011   Q3CY2011  
  Public Review   Download page   Q3CY2011   Q3CY2011  
  Public Review Ballot   View results   Q4CY2011   Q4CY2011  
  Proposed Final Draft   Download page   Q4CY2011   Q4CY2011  
   
JCP version in use: 2.7
Java Specification Participation Agreement version in use: 2.0
Please direct comments on this JSR to: edward.burns@oracle.com
 

2.14 Please describe the anticipated working model for the Expert Group working on developing this specification.

We will use the same working model as in JSR-314: primarily email discussion with occasional conference calls and other distributed team technology uses. See section 2.15 for the transparency measures we will use.

The reference implementation will be developed using an Open Source development model.

2.15 It is important to the success of the community and each JSR that the work of the Expert Group be handled in a manner which provides the community and the public with insight into the work the Expert Group is doing, and the decisions that the Expert Group has made. The Executive Committees would like to ensure Spec Leads understand the value of this transparency and ask that each JSR have an operating plan in place for how their JSR will address the involvement of the community and the public. Please provide your plan here, and refer to the Spec Lead Guide for a more detailed description and a set of example questions you may wish to answer in your plan.

We will leverage the collaborative tools provided by the java.net infrastructure. We have established the "javaserverfaces-spec-public" project on java.net. Therein, we will have a public issue tracker for tracking most issues. Any issues that absolutely must be EG private will be handled with a separate EG-private issue tracker. We will have an EG-private mailing list, and we will have a monitored public discussion forum as well. The reference implementation will be developed entirely in the public javaserverfaces project on java.net. The TCK will be developed privately by Oracle. We will leverage the Early Draft feature of JCP 2.7 to allow the public to see the spec in progress.

2.16 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both. Include version information for the profile or platform in your answer.

Oracle will deliver a Reference Implementation (RI) and Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK). The RI will be made available standalone. The TCK will be made available standalone.

2.17 Please state the rationale if previous versions are available stand-alone and you are now proposing in 2.13 to only deliver RI and TCK as part of a profile or platform edition (See sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 of the JCP 2 document).

N/A

2.18 Please provide a description of the business terms for the Specification, RI and TCK that will apply when this JSR is final.

TBD





Section 3: Contributions

3.1 Please list any existing documents, specifications, or implementations that describe the technology. Please include links to the documents if they are publicly available.

TBD

3.2 Explanation of how these items might be used as a starting point for the work.

TBD