I have written quite a bit on this topic in relation to components and
CSS/XUL and the benefits of structual separation with components:
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/jhook/archive/2005/07/programmer_frie_1.html
Facelets ability to work with any markup (XUL included) and allowing
custom compositions (UserTags) allows a great degree of flexability and
re-use with JSF.
-- Jacob
Simon Kitching wrote:
Korhonen, Kalle wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Winer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December
15, 2005 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r356552 - in 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
Adam, care to elaborate more on why you think abstracting away from HTML
is the only way to go? I.e. why not Tapestry-like approach (though I
guess you could see jwcid as abstracting away from HTML too)?
Well one obvious reason is to be able to render to different
presentation technologies. HTML is definitely *not* a perfect
presentation language that will last us into the next century :-).
If the presentation is done in terms of widgets, eg by specifying a
"selectOneMenu" rather than a <SELECT> then this can be rendered as
HTML, or as Mozilla-XUL or any other presentation markup that may be
invented in the future.
There are of course disadvantages to this too, particularly when JSF
is in as raw a state as currently. Often it is necessary to mix JSF
and HTML to get the necessary results, and the more abstract the JSF
presentation markup is the harder it is to do this. And using CSS for
presentation is simple when using a tapestry-like approach, but much
less so when using an "abstract" JSF view definition.
Regards,
Simon
--
Jacob Hookom - Minneapolis
----------------------------
JSF-EG, JSF-RI, EL, Facelets
