Sean Schofield wrote:
Can you elaborate on what exactly is buffered in the JSP case. I have
a rough idea of what you are talking about here but I don't know
enough about the internals of JSP to completely understand this. I'm
interested in some more specifics here.
With using JSP (or any Vi
On 4/18/06, Jacob Hookom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think where the performance shows up is that with JSP, you are
> buffering a lot of non-component data on each call, so the
> 'instructions' for your tree have to be re-evaluated with each request.
Can you elaborate on what exactly is buffere
What you are describing is basically what Facelets does-- except it builds a static node tree instead of compiled Java source. FYI, I've been working on Tomcat 6's Jasper compiler and it *is* scary.
>From: "Adam Winer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On 4/18/06, Gary VanMatre wrote: > > > > >From: "Martin
>From: "Adam Winer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On 4/18/06, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > >From: "Martin Marinschek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > > > > > Facelets are faster - the JSP overhead goes with them. Adam quoted 14% > > > speed gains by using Facelets. > > > > > > > Is that met
On 4/18/06, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >From: "Martin Marinschek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > Facelets are faster - the JSP overhead goes with them. Adam quoted 14%
> > speed gains by using Facelets.
> >
>
> Is that metric a comparison of the time it takes to compile a JSP versu
Stan pointed out, that the Tomcat PMC chair is about to
put them into a public/independend m2_repo
-Matthias
On 4/19/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, they haven't been exposed on Maven. We should be rather fast on
> doing this, though, cause we also need this for JSF1.2.
>
>
No, they haven't been exposed on Maven. We should be rather fast on
doing this, though, cause we also need this for JSF1.2.
regards,
Martin
On 4/19/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of dependencies: Facelets has a dependency
> on the EE 5 javax.el libraries. I know that thes
Speaking of dependencies: Facelets has a dependency
on the EE 5 javax.el libraries. I know that these have
been contributed to Apache for Tomcat 6, so license
shouldn't be an issue, but has that been exposed
as independent Maven downloads? This is gonna come
up in the ADF Faces incubator in a hu
EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:13 PM
> > To: MyFaces Development
> > Subject: Re: idea regarding components
> >
> > On 4/18/06, Abrams, Howa
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:13 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: idea regarding components
>
> On 4/18/06, Abrams, Howard A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Reading t
On 4/18/06, Abrams, Howard A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reading that link and under those rules, I would think that you cannot
> include any jar that included any JavaScript or XML; they would count as
> non-binary/source. I haven't looked at facelets closely (because of the
> CDDL license), but
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:51 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: idea regarding components
>
> On 4/18/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually unfort
On 4/18/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually unfortunately martin pointed me towards a huge issue
> why we cannot do it (yet)
> facelets seem to be under CDDL, AFAIR this has not been cleared yet
> if we can link to it has it?
> What is the status regarding this.
The CDDL is fine.
Mike Kienenberger schrieb:
Werner, I don't see a problem with this for the sandbox. In fact,
this is how I do all of my component development -- first I write a
facelets version (ie, no JSP tags or tld stuff), then, if I want to
give the component a wider distribution audience, I go ahead and
On 4/18/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The JSP tag writing should be
> > >pretty mechanical (albeit boring) work. Maybe we could write a script
> > >to generate them :)
On 4/18/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the Ora guys already have a generator for th
On 4/18/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I personally don't see anything wrong with letting someone else
> >implement the JSP tag handler part if they want to use it with JSP.
> >"Scratch your own itch" and all that. The JSP tag writing should be
> >pretty mechanical (albeit boring)
>I personally don't see anything wrong with letting someone else
>implement the JSP tag handler part if they want to use it with JSP.
>"Scratch your own itch" and all that. The JSP tag writing should be
>pretty mechanical (albeit boring) work. Maybe we could write a script
>to generate them :)
On 4/18/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121) schrieb:
> > Do you mean replicating the tomahawk-components or different
> > components under the tomahawk-sign?
> >
> Different components, I have had this idea for some time now.
> Most html based components are not
>Mario Ivankovits schrieb:
>> But I admit having to write the html markup in an renderer is a pain.
>> What about a html2jsf converter which takes a html input file and
>> generates the out.write stuff?
>> Should be possible.
That's basically what Facelets does, except it's an xml2jsf converter.
>From: "Martin Marinschek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Facelets are faster - the JSP overhead goes with them. Adam quoted 14% > speed gains by using Facelets. >
Is that metric a comparison of the time it takes to compile a JSP versus parsing the XML document or is that averaged out over several invoca
Hi!
>> I dont know, why you think facelets are speedier. They use exactly the
>> same renderer class, no?
>>
> Actually they are faster, but that is not my point, my point was to
> enable easier component editing
> and having a good set of components built upon an easier component tech.
>
F
Mario Ivankovits schrieb:
> Hi Werner!
>> Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121) schrieb:
>>
>>> Do you mean replicating the tomahawk-components or different
>>> components under the tomahawk-sign?
>>>
>> Different components, I have had this idea for some time now.
>>
> Sorry, I dont like this idea
I think where the performance shows up is that with JSP, you are
buffering a lot of non-component data on each call, so the
'instructions' for your tree have to be re-evaluated with each request.
When you get into AJAX or partial processing, this can get expensive!
With Facelets, we have a sta
Facelets are faster - the JSP overhead goes with them. Adam quoted 14%
speed gains by using Facelets.
regards,
Martin
On 4/18/06, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Werner!
> > Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121) schrieb:
> >
> >> Do you mean replicating the tomahawk-components or different
Hi Werner!
> Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121) schrieb:
>
>> Do you mean replicating the tomahawk-components or different
>> components under the tomahawk-sign?
>>
> Different components, I have had this idea for some time now.
>
Sorry, I dont like this idea.
I dont know, why you think facelet
Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121) schrieb:
> Do you mean replicating the tomahawk-components or different
> components under the tomahawk-sign?
>
>
Different components, I have had this idea for some time now.
Most html based components are not really portable.
For instance our dojo work currently would
Do you mean replicating the tomahawk-components or different
components under the tomahawk-sign?
regards
Alexander
> -Original Message-
> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Werner Punz
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:41 PM
> To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
> Subject: idea reg
27 matches
Mail list logo
