RE: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
Hi, I also think Tiles is the best. So, supporting tiles must be required, but if Tomahowk stuff has done it, I think that Shale can stop giving this module. It also fits well with the idea of merging MyFaces and Shale. Regards, Esteve Avilés -Mensaje original- De: Antonio Petrelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: martes, 08 de enero de 2008 17:54 Para: dev@shale.apache.org Asunto: Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles 2008/1/8, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I agree and that is why shale clay exists [1]. It has actually been > around longer than facelets but just didn't gain the same momentum > :-(. You'll be happy to hear that JSF 2.0 is working on a templating > solution that looks to be a clone of facelets. But Tiles is always the best :-D Antonio __ Aquest missatge electrònic està dirigit únicament a les adreces indicades. El seu caràcter confidencial, personal i intransferible està protegit legalment. Qualsevol revelació, ús o reenviament no autoritzat, total o parcial, està prohibit. Si ha rebut aquest missatge per equivocació, notifiqui-ho immediatament a la persona que l'ha enviat i esborri el missatge original juntament amb els seus fitxers annexos sense llegir-lo ni gravar-lo. TMB (Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona) Informació interactiva de transport: www.tmb.net
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
2008/1/8, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I agree and that is why shale clay exists [1]. It has actually been > around longer than facelets but just didn't gain the same momentum > :-(. You'll be happy to hear that JSF 2.0 is working on a templating > solution that looks to be a clone of facelets. But Tiles is always the best :-D Antonio
RE: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Hi, > My opinion on this subject is that you should take a decision as soon as > possible about the templating strategy. > Every good framework, as shale, needs a good templating tech. > So I think that Shale must decide the strategy: use facelets (and > delete tiles integration) or upgrade to Tiles2. But we can not loose > more time on this. > It is a very important aspect to take care on when choosing a framework. > I agree and that is why shale clay exists [1]. It has actually been around longer than facelets but just didn't gain the same momentum :-(. You'll be happy to hear that JSF 2.0 is working on a templating solution that looks to be a clone of facelets. [1] http://shale.apache.org/shale-clay/index.html > Esteve > Gary > > -Mensaje original- > De: Greg Reddin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Enviado el: lunes, 07 de enero de 2008 22:06 > Para: dev@shale.apache.org > Asunto: Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles > > On Jan 4, 2008 8:40 PM, Gregg Leichtman wrote: > > > > I consider this important, since I use Tiles and I want to and > > currently am using JSF 1.2, since it resolves the interweaving problem > > > among other things. Granted, I could potentially move to Clay, but I > > came from Struts and I am familiar with Tiles and it does what I need > > it to do, especially the latest version. IHMO the current state of > > Tiles support in MyFaces and Shale acts as a barrier to Tiles adoption > > > under JSF 1.2 which I hope is not intentional. > > My original intent was to invest effort in getting Tiles to work better > with JSF. Then I discovered Facelets and decided my efforts would be > largely redundant. I haven't used Clay yet, though I didn't ignore it > intentionally, but to me, Facelets does for JSF what Tiles originally > did for Struts. That is, it provides an extremely easy-to-use templating > and page-building system. Once I got used to Facelets JSP in JSF felt > like driving a 1973 Plymouth that gets about > 4 mpg gas mileage :-) I do think Tiles could do a lot for JSP in JSF > with some TLC, but, again, the work just seems redundant to me. The > effort to migrate from Struts-Tiles to Tiles 2 is about the same as > learning Facelets. I still love Tiles and I think it has a good future, > but the low-hanging fruit has been harvested IMO. > > Greg > > > > __ > > Aquest missatge electronic esta dirigit unicament a les adreces indicades. El > seu caracter confidencial, personal i intransferible esta protegit legalment. > Qualsevol revelacio, us o reenviament no autoritzat, total o parcial, esta > prohibit. Si ha rebut aquest missatge per equivocacio, notifiqui-ho > immediatament a la persona que l'ha enviat i esborri el missatge original > juntament amb els seus fitxers annexos sense llegir-lo ni gravar-lo. > TMB (Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona) > > > Informacio interactiva de transport: www.tmb.net
RE: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
Hi, My opinion on this subject is that you should take a decision as soon as possible about the templating strategy. Every good framework, as shale, needs a good templating tech. So I think that Shale must decide the strategy: use facelets (and delete tiles integration) or upgrade to Tiles2. But we can not loose more time on this. It is a very important aspect to take care on when choosing a framework. Esteve -Mensaje original- De: Greg Reddin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: lunes, 07 de enero de 2008 22:06 Para: dev@shale.apache.org Asunto: Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles On Jan 4, 2008 8:40 PM, Gregg Leichtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I consider this important, since I use Tiles and I want to and > currently am using JSF 1.2, since it resolves the interweaving problem > among other things. Granted, I could potentially move to Clay, but I > came from Struts and I am familiar with Tiles and it does what I need > it to do, especially the latest version. IHMO the current state of > Tiles support in MyFaces and Shale acts as a barrier to Tiles adoption > under JSF 1.2 which I hope is not intentional. My original intent was to invest effort in getting Tiles to work better with JSF. Then I discovered Facelets and decided my efforts would be largely redundant. I haven't used Clay yet, though I didn't ignore it intentionally, but to me, Facelets does for JSF what Tiles originally did for Struts. That is, it provides an extremely easy-to-use templating and page-building system. Once I got used to Facelets JSP in JSF felt like driving a 1973 Plymouth that gets about 4 mpg gas mileage :-) I do think Tiles could do a lot for JSP in JSF with some TLC, but, again, the work just seems redundant to me. The effort to migrate from Struts-Tiles to Tiles 2 is about the same as learning Facelets. I still love Tiles and I think it has a good future, but the low-hanging fruit has been harvested IMO. Greg __ Aquest missatge electronic esta dirigit unicament a les adreces indicades. El seu caracter confidencial, personal i intransferible esta protegit legalment. Qualsevol revelacio, us o reenviament no autoritzat, total o parcial, esta prohibit. Si ha rebut aquest missatge per equivocacio, notifiqui-ho immediatament a la persona que l'ha enviat i esborri el missatge original juntament amb els seus fitxers annexos sense llegir-lo ni gravar-lo. TMB (Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona) Informacio interactiva de transport: www.tmb.net
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
On Jan 4, 2008 8:40 PM, Gregg Leichtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I consider this important, since I use Tiles and I want to and currently > am using JSF 1.2, since it resolves the interweaving problem among other > things. Granted, I could potentially move to Clay, but I came from > Struts and I am familiar with Tiles and it does what I need it to do, > especially the latest version. IHMO the current state of Tiles support > in MyFaces and Shale acts as a barrier to Tiles adoption under JSF 1.2 > which I hope is not intentional. My original intent was to invest effort in getting Tiles to work better with JSF. Then I discovered Facelets and decided my efforts would be largely redundant. I haven't used Clay yet, though I didn't ignore it intentionally, but to me, Facelets does for JSF what Tiles originally did for Struts. That is, it provides an extremely easy-to-use templating and page-building system. Once I got used to Facelets JSP in JSF felt like driving a 1973 Plymouth that gets about 4 mpg gas mileage :-) I do think Tiles could do a lot for JSP in JSF with some TLC, but, again, the work just seems redundant to me. The effort to migrate from Struts-Tiles to Tiles 2 is about the same as learning Facelets. I still love Tiles and I think it has a good future, but the low-hanging fruit has been harvested IMO. Greg
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
I brought this up, since the Shale developers might want to more carefully consider the decision to drop Tiles support along the way to MyFaces integration or at least consider how Tiles/JSF 1.2 support will be managed going forward under the MyFaces umbrella. It has been my experience that to get around the interleaving/interweaving problem---immediate vs. deferred expression evaluation---of JSP/JSF/Tiles it was necessary to modify existing Tiles View handlers. The experimental code, based on the Sun RI that I am using and posted previously resolves this problem apparently by using a new JSF 1.2 specific interweaving class. I consider this important, since I use Tiles and I want to and currently am using JSF 1.2, since it resolves the interweaving problem among other things. Granted, I could potentially move to Clay, but I came from Struts and I am familiar with Tiles and it does what I need it to do, especially the latest version. IHMO the current state of Tiles support in MyFaces and Shale acts as a barrier to Tiles adoption under JSF 1.2 which I hope is not intentional. Given the amount of effort that has been put into the latest Tiles version and its apparent strong support in the Struts community, it seems that it would be beneficial to refactor a Tiles view handler to support JSF 1.2 across multiple JSF implementations and yes I do know that I am asking for this support from a group of volunteers. I would do this myself and post it, but I don't believe that I quite have the detailed expertise to pull it off yet. -=> Gregg <=- Greg Reddin wrote: > On Jan 2, 2008 6:25 PM, Gregg Leichtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Does the MyFaces view handler support JSF 1.2? >> > > I'm ashamed to say I don't know what's changed in the ViewHandler API > between 1.1 and 1.2. If there are changes I suspect the current view > handler from MyFaces or Shale wouldn't be compatible, right? I think > I've heard somewhere in MyFaces land that Tomahawk is not > 1.2-compliant. > > I hope someone will chime in and clarify :-) > > Greg > > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
On Jan 2, 2008 6:25 PM, Gregg Leichtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does the MyFaces view handler support JSF 1.2? I'm ashamed to say I don't know what's changed in the ViewHandler API between 1.1 and 1.2. If there are changes I suspect the current view handler from MyFaces or Shale wouldn't be compatible, right? I think I've heard somewhere in MyFaces land that Tomahawk is not 1.2-compliant. I hope someone will chime in and clarify :-) Greg
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
Does the MyFaces view handler support JSF 1.2? -=> Gregg <=- Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On 1/2/08, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Seems to be consensus. >> > > > Indeed. > > >> To answer Rahul's question, I believe the >> MyFaces view handler is doing the exact same thing. The Shale one >> looks so different simply because the Tiles API has undergone so much >> change since the Shale one was created. >> >> > > > Thanks! > > -Rahul > > > >> First chance I get I will go through and put a bullet in it :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >> > > signature.asc Description: PGP signature signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
On 1/2/08, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seems to be consensus. Indeed. > To answer Rahul's question, I believe the > MyFaces view handler is doing the exact same thing. The Shale one > looks so different simply because the Tiles API has undergone so much > change since the Shale one was created. > Thanks! -Rahul > First chance I get I will go through and put a bullet in it :-) > > Thanks, > Greg >
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
Seems to be consensus. To answer Rahul's question, I believe the MyFaces view handler is doing the exact same thing. The Shale one looks so different simply because the Tiles API has undergone so much change since the Shale one was created. First chance I get I will go through and put a bullet in it :-) Thanks, Greg On Jan 2, 2008 9:02 AM, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Antonio Petrelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 2007/12/26, Greg Reddin : > > > I'd like to propose that we discontinue support for the Shale-Tiles > > > component. > > > > +1 > > Supporting the Tomahawk-thingy is the best option IMO. > > > > +1 > > I agree too. The shale tiles view handler has always struggled to gain > momentum. > > > > Antonio > > > Gary
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
From: "Antonio Petrelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2007/12/26, Greg Reddin : > > I'd like to propose that we discontinue support for the Shale-Tiles > > component. > > +1 > Supporting the Tomahawk-thingy is the best option IMO. > +1 I agree too. The shale tiles view handler has always struggled to gain momentum. > Antonio Gary
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
2007/12/26, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'd like to propose that we discontinue support for the Shale-Tiles > component. +1 Supporting the Tomahawk-thingy is the best option IMO. Antonio
Re: Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
On 12/26/07, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to propose that we discontinue support for the Shale-Tiles > component. I've spent some time looking at the TilesViewHandler over > the last week or so and comparing it to the TilesTwoViewHandler that > is unreleased, but is part of the MyFaces Tomahawk project. The > conclusion I've come to is that the MyFaces version provides what is > needed. To make Shale-Tiles work correctly we'd have to make it look > pretty much like the MyFaces TilesTwoViewHandler. Therefore, I propose > that we discontinue support for our view handler and remove > Shale-Tiles from future releases. If we have improvements to suggest, > I'd propose we put those improvements into the MyFaces Tomahawk view > handler. > > Please let me know your thoughts on the issue. > Thanks, I wasn't aware of the Tomahawk impl but I just had a look. On one side: * shale-tiles is fairly independent (no Shale dependencies) and switching to another ViewHandler should therefore involve minimal other changes * Other than the fact that shale-tiles does a ExternalContext#dispatch and the Tomahawk one leverages the TilesContainer API a lot more -- which presumably does the same thing (not a Tiles user myself) -- they seem very similar ... while on the other ... * shale-tiles is a lightweight dependency (say, as compared to Tomahawk) So, I suggest you make the call (if you haven't already by sending this email :-). If we decide to remove shale-tiles, we will need a suitable blurb in the release notes. -Rahul > Thanks, > Greg >
Proposal: Sundown Shale-Tiles
I'd like to propose that we discontinue support for the Shale-Tiles component. I've spent some time looking at the TilesViewHandler over the last week or so and comparing it to the TilesTwoViewHandler that is unreleased, but is part of the MyFaces Tomahawk project. The conclusion I've come to is that the MyFaces version provides what is needed. To make Shale-Tiles work correctly we'd have to make it look pretty much like the MyFaces TilesTwoViewHandler. Therefore, I propose that we discontinue support for our view handler and remove Shale-Tiles from future releases. If we have improvements to suggest, I'd propose we put those improvements into the MyFaces Tomahawk view handler. Please let me know your thoughts on the issue. Thanks, Greg
