• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

@ManagedBean vs @Named

 
Marcin Kwiatkowski
Ranch Hand
Posts: 32
Eclipse IDE Java Ruby
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
There seems to be ongoing discussion on which annotation should be used. What's your take on that?
 
Jason Porter
Author
Ranch Hand
Posts: 126
5
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
As you've said, there's been a lot of talk. It appears that pretty much everyone is suggesting @Name. The @ManagedBean (from JSF) really doesn't offer anything that @Name does not. It wouldn't surprise ms if @ManagedBean becomes deprecated in JSF2.1 in favor of CDI.
 
Ed Burns
author
Ranch Hand
Posts: 82
5
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jason Porter wrote:As you've said, there's been a lot of talk. It appears that pretty much everyone is suggesting @Name. The @ManagedBean (from JSF) really doesn't offer anything that @Name does not. It wouldn't surprise ms if @ManagedBean becomes deprecated in JSF2.1 in favor of CDI.


The presence of javax.faces.bean http://java.sun.com/javaee/6/docs/api/javax/faces/bean/package-summary.html in JSF 2 is only to enable those that use JSF2 on top of a Servlet 2.5 container to still have access to the features that obviate the need for the faces-config.xml.

If you're on an EE6 container, such as Oracle Glassfish, you'll be better served by using @Named.

Ed
 
Marcin Kwiatkowski
Ranch Hand
Posts: 32
Eclipse IDE Java Ruby
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Sounds good. Thanks for the answer!
 
It is sorta covered in the JavaRanch Style Guide.
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic