<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>











<rss version="2.0" xmlns:jf="http://www.jivesoftware.com/xmlns/jiveforums/rss">



<channel>
    <title>Support Forums: Message List - JCP Watch: JSP 2.1, JDK 1.5, Web Services Metadata</title>
    <link>http://www.theserverside.com</link>
    <description>Most recent forum messages</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
        <generator>Jive Forums Silver 5.5.30 (www.jivesoftware.com)</generator>
    
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 07:48:10 -0400</pubDate>


    <item>

        <title>Re: and things get more divided...</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[1. From what I could see, the changes to JSP EL driven by JSF are changes that are very beneficial to other sophisticated template systems layered onto JSP.  I don't really understand why people are complaining about this.<br><br>2. My complaints about...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 13:42:31 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 13:42:31 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 13:42:31 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Dan Greening</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: and things get more divided...</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>You can think of it as the next iteration of the JSP 2.0 EL. And, the syntax is pretty much the same (you just use &quot;#&quot; instead of &quot;$&quot;). So, JSP 2.1 is about giving pure JSP the same features, and separating out the EL into...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 11:34:38 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 11:34:38 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 11:34:38 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Fernando Racca</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: and things get more divided...</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[Ok so maybe I am not understanding this. So when I upgrade to JSP 2.1 and the JSF Minor Release, I will not have to upgrade anything. If that's not correct, then I agree to the points made by the previous poster. Maybe JSF is not incomplete or...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 11:27:15 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 11:27:15 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 11:27:15 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Makan Time</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Re: and things get more divided...</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>So Sun admits they pushed JSF 1.0 to market in an incomplete and inconsistent state by stating the EL in it will be abandoned in the next MINOR release in favour of an enhanced version of the EL currently in JSP 2.0.What they should of course...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 10:11:25 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 10:11:25 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 10:11:25 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Kito Mann</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>3</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>and things get more divided...</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>JSF and JSP are complementary technologies, not competing, just as are JSP and servlets.</blockquote>I don't think that Sun sees it that way. Why otherwise you would adapt JSP to accomodate JSF needs? <br><br>JSP must have a straightforward,...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 08:26:11 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 08:26:11 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 08:26:11 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Fernando Racca</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>and things get more divided...</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[So Sun admits they pushed JSF 1.0 to market in an incomplete and inconsistent state by stating the EL in it will be abandoned in the next MINOR release in favour of an enhanced version of the EL currently in JSP 2.0.<br><br>What they should of course...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 05:56:11 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 05:56:11 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 05:56:11 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Jeroen Wenting</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>5</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>J2EE Web Layer</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[From what I can see of EJB 3.0 J2EE is heading in the right direction. Unfortunately it looks like the Web layer is still in a bit of a mess. The approach does appear to be iterating towards a solution. However it would be nice if Sun could take a step...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 05:41:27 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 05:41:27 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 05:41:27 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Phil Borg</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>JSP VS JSF</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[I don't know why java community keeps disscussing this issue while sun should eleminate the whole JSp/Servlet thing nd work on providing JSF 2.0 with the next J2EE specs so that developing web application would not be an issue if th specification...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 01:44:12 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 01:44:12 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 01:44:12 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Omar Abu-jiab</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Transitioning JSP versions</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>The learning curve for JSP 2.0 EL is much lower than JSTL &lt;c:out&gt; and all that stuff.</blockquote>Agreed with one caveat. &lt;c:out&gt; is still required as the working group could not agree on escaping rules for body ${epressions}. I...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 01:17:58 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 01:17:58 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 01:17:58 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Matthias Ernst</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>JCP Watch: JSP 2.1, JDK 1.5, Web Services Metadata</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[JSR 181 is J2EE's response to Longhorn's distributed SOA.  Finally a JAX-RPC methodology that beats Axis!  Also, possible future targeting of MDBs, SDOs, BPEL, perhaps via MDA.  Simply add a modern discovery protocol like WS-Resource or WS-Discovery, and...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 00:29:40 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 00:29:40 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Wed, 12 May 2004 00:29:40 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 12, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Brian Miller</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>How about...</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[If EJB 3.0 is 'replace entity beans with Hibernate' why can't JSP 2.1 be 'replace JSPs with Tapestry'? ;-)<br><br>With backward compatibility, of course!<br><br>Tom]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 21:18:17 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 21:18:17 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 21:18:17 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 11, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Tom Davies</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Transitioning JSP versions</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[<blockquote>I couldn't believe JSF had to reimplement an EL (and, although this is off-topic) how poorly implemented JSF 1.0 was.  We made the terrible mistake of trying a project with JSF 1.0.</blockquote>And JSP is being modified to support...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 19:09:40 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 19:09:40 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 19:09:40 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 11, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Fernando Racca</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Transitioning JSP versions</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[When stable JSP 2.0 support came out in Tomcat, we switched. It took a day or two to convert the yucky-verbose JSTL format to JSP 2.0 EL.  The learning curve for JSP 2.0 EL is much lower than JSTL &lt;c:out&gt; and all that stuff.<br><br>I couldn't...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 18:31:15 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 18:31:15 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 18:31:15 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 11, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Dan Greening</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>2</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Consider the alternative</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[I tottally agree with that. <br><br>The problem is that this will be implemented by J2EE 1.5, while most application servers still don't support J2EE 1.4. <br><br>So i won't consider Faces until it is consistent. take a look at this.<br><br><br>JSF 1.2 -...]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 17:07:56 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 17:07:56 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 17:07:56 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 11, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Fernando Racca</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>2</jf:replyCount>
    </item>


    <item>

        <title>Consider the alternative</title>
        <link>http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=25855</link>

        

        
            <description><![CDATA[Well, consider what the other choices are: if the syntax is still flawed (an easy and common assertion to make) then NOT fixing it is worse than breaking the flawed versions, IMO.]]></description>
        

        <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 16:38:21 -0400</pubDate>

        

        <jf:creationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 16:38:21 -0400</jf:creationDate>
        <jf:modificationDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 16:38:21 -0400</jf:modificationDate>
        <jf:date>May 11, 2004</jf:date>
        <jf:author>Joseph Ottinger</jf:author>
        <jf:replyCount>3</jf:replyCount>
    </item>



</channel>
</rss>

