>From: Randahl Fink Isaksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Has anyone got any impressions of the two different combinations shale + > facelets and shale + clay? In particular I was wondering: > > 1. Is shale *completely* separated from clay so that using facelets > instead of clay does not break anything?
Shale Clay only has a dependency with the Shale core jar. All the other features/libraries don't have dependencies with Clay. Using facelets should work fine with other features of Shale. > 2. Has clay got any advantages over facelets when used with shale > because clay was built for shale whereas facelets is meant for any JSF > platform? > My opinion might be somewhat bias, but I'll list some differences. Clay has this notion of a phantom page similar to a tiles definition. It also has metadata inheritance like tiles. Facelets only provides compositional reuse. Clay supports non XML html templates. Facelets requires well-formed templates. Clay supports both but doesn't provide a validating parser. Clay's core extension point is a component so it can be used with JSP and as alternative to JSP. Facelets can not be used within JSP. Clay has a runtime options that allows page composition to be build from model data. I have not compared the speed to Facelets or JSP but Clay is very fast. It uses allot of template caching. Clay is supported by the Shale community. Facelets has a huge following with several members of the JSF experts community that are active contributors. > Randahl > Gary
