On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:27:49 -0700, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I admit to a huge amount of ignorance about JSF. I have partly been > stymied by an inability to decide on a text to read. I have always > liked Hans work, and may go that direction. I cannot know, of course, > how that ignorance impacts my part in this discussion. I do think > that in any event it is wise for shale to accommodate but not be tied > to a particular implementation, if there is no penalty for that, and I > cannot see one. I have always found that allowing options in the long > run. >
A particular implementation of JSF, or a particular view technology in general? You don't have to worry about the former ... we'd be coding solely to JSF standard APIs, so you can use the JSF RI, MyFaces (once they fix a few outstanding bugs that mess up struts-faces too :-), or anyone else's conforming implementation. Choosing to rely or not rely on JSF's request processing lifecycle has huge impact on the design of Shale ... basically for everything that JSF already does that we want to keep, we'd have to define our own abstraction and then enforce that contract on any other technology. The simplest example is navigating from one page to another -- if you can't assume JSF underneath, then ViewController (or something) needs some additional API to do that. Regarding JSF information, I have read and can vouch for Hans Bergsten's and David Geary's JSF books. I haven't had time to read some of the others, but I've met some of the authors and it seems likely that they'll be high quality as well. A good starting bookmark for your browsing pleasure is <http://jsfcentral.com>, which has links to lots and lots of resources about JSF. Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
