Sounds good! of course, MyFaces comes with its own solutions for two of those problems...
So what remains is performance in production and time-loss while developing. Of course, that's more than enough reason to switch! regards, Martin On 12/15/05, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
