First of all I am not sure why so many thread forked from the initial
discussion. This will make a lot more difficult to figure out what was
already said, and towards what conclusion we are moving.
For your comments my answer is simple:
that's exactly the opposite of what and how RoR has gain
On 6/21/06, Alexandru Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think this can be done with the big-package-solves-everything
approach, than I am oke with it.
Hmmm, you can have both. If people are interested in RoR simplicity,
then why not create an Action-on-Rails distribution that configures
On 6/21/06, Alexandru Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all I am not sure why so many thread forked from the initial
discussion. This will make a lot more difficult to figure out what was
already said, and towards what conclusion we are moving.
Because the thread introduced two
Ted, as I was afraid, you are unfortunately, interpretting wrongly my
message. RoR is not about dumb-distro, nor my intention/hope to have
something very simple in the Java world.
As for we can built different distributions and things like this: I
would definitely try to be objective: we are
The reason there are both Action and Shale frameworks is because we
didn't know how to support JSF in Action. We're finally starting to
make some headway on that score. Now what do we need to do to finish
the job?
If the job is finished, then is someone up to showing us the code by
driving the
On 6/21/06, Juan Ara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is, provide an easy way to do things with JSF in a plugable
fashion: use it or not, use it our way or not, but if you use it our
way, well... there must be any benefit!
Yes, it's always been a technical problem. We accepted Shale as a
Comparing JSF to JSP, FTL, PDF, XLST is comparing apples and oranges.
That is like comparing Struts to PDF. Ridiculous!
On 6/21/06, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/21/06, Juan Ara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is, provide an easy way to do things with JSF in a plugable
fashion:
