This is so odd. You begin by recognizing the problem and trying to hide it. Now you deny the problem and want to continue it in spades. Everyone who knows anything about frameworks sees that these two frameworks are inherently incompatible. They have been from the start. That is the problem. Had Craig not had a career dependent presently on the success of JSF and also the pull at Struts, this mess would never have happened.
On 6/21/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim O'Brien wrote: > There is obviously a good deal > of exchange, but the frameworks "compete" (not my words). While this may be true politically, from a code perspective, I completely disagree. Just about every feature of Shale, AFAIK can easily be used with Action 2: Spring integration, clay, message bundles, basically anything that doesn't use an alternative NavigationHandler or Lifecycle. I think Shale is a great project and plan to use it where I can in Action 2 JSF examples as it really makes JSF easier. I think JSF is a very legitimate view option for Action 2 and Shale fills in JSF's gaps quite nicely. Don --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
