@facelets working with MyFaces: Well, I was under the impression (by what Jacob and Adam pointed out) that Myfaces and Facelets didn't work together exceptionally good.
So you say it works and there are just some minor flaws? regards, Maritn So you are saying it works but On 12/17/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, they are still in old jsp format. > > We should rework them in jspx anyways at some point in time. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 12/16/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/14/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 ;). > > > > As facelets end-user #1 (so I'm told), I can say that facelets has > > worked, and continues to work, fine with MyFaces (I have used MyFaces > > and facelets exclusively the last 6 months). There's a few tomahawk > > and sandbox components out there that need better facelet support, and > > hopefully I can be instrumental in getting that developed, as time > > permits, but most of them work "as-is" right now. > > > > One of the things I'd like to see happen is to have the facelets > > taglib.xml files generated automatically for the tomahawk and sandbox > > components. That's probably going to require getting code generation > > working again, and I haven't had a chance to review that part of the > > project. I think the Shale/Clay folks would like to see similar > > functionality provided for their view handler. > > > > The other thing that will be helpful is to get some facelet component > > tag handler classes written and added to the myfaces codebase for > > those components that have non-ActionSource method bindings (or > > non-pass-through Tag code behavior). This will require a build-time > > dependency on facelets for tomahawk and sandbox, so it might need to > > be done in such a way as to make building these classes optional. > > > > And, of course, we need some examples. As Adam has mentioned, > > facelet xhtml pages are so close to jspx pages that often times you > > can "convert" between the two simply by renaming them. Unfortunately > > (and I haven't looked at the examples in detail recently, so I could > > be wrong), the examples are mostly in jsp, and contain a lot of > > embedded scriptlets. > > > > -Mike > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
