On 12/14/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam,
>
> we haven't as we still have some open bugs which prevent working
> Facelets perfectly with MyFaces. So this is a hen-egg problem. If we
> got rid of those bugs, we'd use Facelets more, if Facelets was used
> more, there might be someone inclined to get rid of those bugs ;).
>
> Now if someone who was interested in Facelets a lot would help us
> getting rid of those bugs we would probably get there faster - hint,
> hint...
>
> As to why many of the MyFaces committers don't see the actual need to
> use Facelets - it's good that Facelets provide an alternative view
> definition language - but if you keep strictly to using JSF tags in
> your JSP-code, Facelets solve a problem that doesn't exist for you,
> right?
Not even close. You really need to try out Facelets a little -
it solves A LOT of problems. For example, how about:
- Eliminating the sit-and-wait-for-compiling cycle when you modify a
JSP (it's instantaneous)
- Robust templating that works far better than Tiles (for ewxample,
good JSF-based parameterization of your templates)
- Support for c:forEach - no, JSF tags aren't *always*
good enough.
- Significantly higher performance than JSPs
Facelets is a total non-brainer for JSF developers of all stripes. Really!
If a few of you guys tried it out, I think you'd be a lot more eager to jump on
giving it first-class support.
-- Adam
