> -----Original Message----- > From: Bruno Dumon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 5:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: CocoonForms compared with JSF > > > On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 14:24, Danny Bols wrote: > > > From: Reinhard Poetz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: zaterdag 22 november 2003 13:42 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: CocoonForms compared with JSF > > > > > > > > > > > > Over the last days I had an offlist discussion with Sylvain and I > > > don't want to keep back a very nice summary of Sylvain comparing > > > CocoonForms with JSF. I set up a Wiki page: > > > http://wiki.cocoondev.org/Wiki.jsp?page=CocoonFormsJSF > > > > > > We would be very interested in your opinions because this will > > > become a "FAQ" in the future (This week I hold a presentation on > > > Control Flow and only mentioned CocoonForms in a few > sentences but > > > in the break after it the "JSF-question" was one of the > first ones I > > > got ;-) > > > > > > And I'm with you Jörg, that we have to show that CocoonForms is > > > *NOT* tied to HTML at all. Maybe a XUL example and a second skin > > > would be great! > > > > > > Awaiting your comments :-) > > > > Nice summary. > > One thing worth mentioning IMO is the Inversion Of Control. Since > > woody is integrated in flow the script has control over the form > > processing steps. I don't know if JSF has solutions for this. > > Indeed a good point to mention, though I think it's more > about separation of concerns. Most other webapp frameworks > like struts, JSF or tapestry cover both the flow and form > concerns, while woody only does forms.
added to the wiki page > Another thing that makes woody different from JSF, at least I > think so, is that widgets in woody hold strongly typed data, > and that validation happens on this data, not on string > values. IIRC JSF only does conversion as part of the binding. added to the wiki page > Then there's also other stuff like the fact that the > structure of a form is described in a form definition (I have > no idea how JSF actually builds its component tree), and that > lightweight instances of this form definition are created > (i.e. what's common to all instances is only held once in > memory). Of course, this may make the structure of a Woody > form less flexible (but more formal), though with the > addition of Tim's union widget we can describe everything of > regular complexity (concatentation, repetition and alternation). not added to the wiki page - if somebody is sure about this feel free to add it to the wiki page > > And last but not least, Woody fits better into Cocoon. IIRC, > JSF requires compliant implementations to support at least JSP ;-) not added because JSF requrires JSP, CocoonForms requires Cocoon ;-) -- Reinhard
