Never mind! You are right again, MyFaces doesn't solve the problems as powerful and easy as facelets do. What we have in place are mere work-arounds.
In fact, Jacob should take up the 4 points you mentioned and put it right up on the facelets webpage. With that in place, we'll have less misunderstanding about facelets upfront as was the case with (the hopefully not insulted ;) Tobago committers. regards, Martin On 12/15/05, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/14/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ;) > > > > Jacob, > > > > I don't want to start a war here. period ;) > > > > I am just playing ping-pong to Adam's style, which he sometimes > > deserves... or - put in another way - I don't want MyFaces to loose > > half its community due to insulted committers ;). > > Hope I'm not coming off as insulting any of the committers > here. Especially 'cause I *totally* agree that abstracting away > from HTML is the only way to go. I'm just reacting with > my usual vigor at some statements here that underestimate > how truly cool Facelets is. (For example, I'm not yet buying that > MyFaces has really solved the page templating and c:forEach > problems as nicely or powerfully as Facelets has...) > > > I am absolutely d'accord that Facelets is the better view technology - > > we should try to get rid of this JSP stuff ASAP. > > > > But - with the exception of Mike I think, most of us didn't step up so > > far. Give us some time... > > Cool! And, of course, I'm being lame by asking "why don't you > guys do this?" instead of the appropriate question: "how can I > help out getting this done?" > > -- Adam > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
