Compare JSF to JavaFX. At version 1.0, both products had both great ideas and some major flaws and omissions.
The difference is what happened after 1.0. The JavaFX team clearly knew exactly what was wrong with 1.0 and knew exactly what to do. A mere six months later, they shipped 1.2 and the list of improvements in that is simply awesome. The dev team (and management) are tangibly in-touch with what people want that product to do. JSF on the other hand, shipped 1.0, and then stagnated. 1.1 and 1.2 dribbled out with minor fixes. There were tons of super-smart volunteer developers scattered onto JSF-extension projects like Apache Shale, Seam, Facelets, Trinidad, Tobago, MyFaces, ICEfaces, ajax4jsf, etc, but the whole project was just a mess. Major well known show- stopper problems like the "stack trace from hell" persisted for years and years without anyone making a serious attempt to fix. This may be the result of the design by committee approach or this may be due to internal problems within Sun (obviously, the company had major issues to deal with), but the bottom line is that JSF was a bad choice of tool for building a web app. What's crazy is that people like Mr. Horstmann or The Java Posse have their heads in stuck in the sand and refuse to acknowledge any of this: JSF is perfectly fine, people just like to whine a lot, there are no other alternatives... Thanks for the replies guys. Now enough griping and back to work :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
