This will come off as marketing but the parallel is inseparable in my mind.
I dislike JSF because it does for front ends what EJB did for back ends without the positive effects. Meaning its supposed to make front end frameworks irrelevant; however, it brings next to nothing new to the table. EJB brought a common set of services to the table. For anyone who has dealt with DCE, MTS and/or CORBA implementations J2EE was a gigantic step forward....at the same time a big step back. The meta data and interfaces surrounding the components were needlessly complicated. It is also overly rigid. I'm philosophically and technically opposed to just "add another layer of abstraction" without revisiting the stuff underneath that made it so complex in the first place. Abstractions leak and the JSF adds so much XML that you LONG for code. I joined Jboss to help bring simplicity to the server side. To help bring enterprise services to POJOs instead of EJBs. I sponsored Tapestry (http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry) into Apache for the same reason. I don't want to make things LOOK simpler by virtue of whizbang tools, I want to make things ACTUALLY simpler. It is a philosophical and technical difference of opinions. I support standards where they bring integration and choice, I deplore standards that restrict them. JSF is such a standard. It isn't really going to make web programming easier, it will just tie you to certain folks' tools (as a capture the client take the server strategy). In my view, JSF doesn't make anyone's life easier but the tool vendor. And as with all of these whizbang tools, when things break....you're left with several XML files to edit and you have to understand all of the abstractions your sitting atop. Are you really looking for web framework portability or just a better web framework? (or possibly its time to rethink the underlying problem) If #1 is what you *really* want (which I just doubt) then fine, if not then JSF isn't really all its cracked up to be. Note that I often detract on Web Services; however, I think there is a time and place for it. JSF is just a bad solution to a non-problem. -Andy -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. > From: "A. Kevin Baynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing > list."<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:09:11 -0500 > To: "Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing list." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: JSF Opinion WAS RE: [Juglist] JavaServer Faces Study Group > > > > | -----Original Message----- > | Behalf Of Andrew C. Oliver > | Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:32 PM > | > | As much as I hate JSF, why are we creating new mail lists to break up the > | TriJUG? This list is so low traffic that I see no reason to do so. > > Why do you dislike JSF? I'm truly curious as to your opinion... I'm not a > JSF booster or detractor. :-) > > ~akb > > > _______________________________________________ > Juglist mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org _______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
