On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:26:00 +0100, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Just spotted this on DZone. It might be relevant: >> http://css.dzone.com/articles/comparing-web-frameworks-and > > > Interesting. Lift would be even worse than JSF, and Play not much better.
I'm curious what makes Lift so bad. Having templates that are 100% html is something that still looks highly enticing to me. The css based replacement mechanism looks very strong. (I have only done a few toy projects in lift, but to say there are more than a few features from it I always wish I had would be an understatement.) Or are you just referring to how stateful it is? I'm still not convinced that is a poor choice. I was under the impression JSF was bad because of the odd lifecycle of everything. -- 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.
