Absolutely +1 It might also make a migration to JSF 2.0 easier.
/JK 2009/12/17 Max Starets <[email protected]>: > +1 from me too. > > Max > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > Hello Andrew, > > I like your proposal. > > +1 on doing so! > > -Matthias > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Andrew Robinson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Currently the trinidad examples (trinidad-demo and trinidad-blank) > use JSP and JSPX. Just turning facelets on for JSPX files isn't going > to work as it causes faces messages due to <jsp:root> and > <jsp.derective> tags. Furthermore, many pages use jsp include tags. To > show proper support of JSF 2, we should not be supporting JSP in > Trinidad's demo IMO (also some features of JSF 2 require facelets to > be used AFAIK). > > I recommend: > > 1) Migrating all *.jspx to *.xml (I'd prefer to not use *.xhtml as > discussed many times in the facelets user's list and on the 314 EG ML) > 2) Replace include jsp tags with ui:include > 3) Replace jsp:root with ui:composition > > Opinions? > > -Andrew > > > > >
