Details

      Description

      My question here in this group is: should we remove our mention and
      usage of OpenAjax in the JSF spec?

      EB> 13.2 JavaScript Namespacing

      EB> JavaScript objects that are not enclosed within a namespace are global,
      EB> which means they run the risk of interfering, overriding and/or
      EB> clobbering previously defined JavaScript objects. This section defines
      EB> the requirements for implementations intending to use the JavaServer
      EB> Faces 2.0 JavaScript API.

      EB> The Open Ajax Alliance is an organization of leading vendors, open
      EB> source projects, and companies using Ajax. Their prime objective is to
      EB> accelerate customer success with Ajax, through the use of open
      EB> standards. The Open Ajax Registry is an industry-wide Ajax registration
      EB> authority managed by the OpenAjax Alliance. The Registry maintains
      EB> industry- wide lists of Ajax runtime libraries to help prevent object
      EB> collisions.

      EB> There is a top level namespace jsf that is registered with the Open Ajax
      EB> Alliance:

      EB> Java Ajax:

      Unknown macro: {EB> namespaceURI}

      EB> [P1-start openajax registration]If the OpenAjax library is available,
      EB> libraries must register themselves using OpenAjax.registerLibrary() at
      EB> the time when the JavaScript files are fetched and parsed by the
      EB> browser\u2019s JavaScript engine. [P1-end]

      EB> if (typeof OpenAjax != "undefined" &&
      EB> typeof OpenAjax.hub.registerLibrary != "undefined")

      Unknown macro: {EB> OpenAjax.hub.registerLibrary("jsf", "www.sun.com", "1.0",EB> null); }

      EB> –
      EB> 8<---------------

      EB> Unfortunately, I now see this text on the website:

      EB> "The following organizations were Members of OpenAjax Alliance at the
      EB> time OpenAjax Alliance terminated formal operations:" A little research
      EB> revealed this email about the termination:

      EB> http://openajax.org/pipermail/steeringcommittee/2012q4/001015.html

      EB> And this article, now nearly four years old.

      EB> https://devcentral.f5.com/articles/5-years-later-openajax-who#.UqdusoG7liw

      EB> Basically, it seems OpenAjax is dead. Anyone care to comment on whether
      EB> we should bother with it in JSR-362?

        Activity

        Ed Burns created issue -
        Hide
        Ed Burns added a comment -

        Set priority to baseline ahead of JSF 2.3 triage. Priorities will be assigned accurately after this exercise.

        Show
        Ed Burns added a comment - Set priority to baseline ahead of JSF 2.3 triage. Priorities will be assigned accurately after this exercise.
        Manfred Riem made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Assignee Ed Burns [ edburns ]
        Ed Burns made changes -
        Priority Trivial [ 5 ] Critical [ 2 ]
        Hide
        Ed Burns added a comment -

        FWIW, I just updated the wikipedia page for Open Ajax Alliance to state that it has terminated operations.

        Show
        Ed Burns added a comment - FWIW, I just updated the wikipedia page for Open Ajax Alliance to state that it has terminated operations.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Ed Burns
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated: