I think that this is the "virtue" and the "vice", isn't it? JSF is page-centric. It is essentially Swing on html. If you like Swing, you might love Shale/JSF. That is not a criticism. I like Swing and think that Shale/JSP is very interesting. Nothing like Struts and a crime to call itself anything in Struts, in my not too popular opinion, but very interesting. Anyway, I think that you have pretty much got the gist of the problems inherent in this sort of framework. It is not an alternative to what you have done. Its in a different neighborhood, in my opinion.
<snip> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:42:35 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...And I did in fact mean you when I wrote "someone" :) > > I generally like the overall idea behind ViewController beans as you > describe. If there was one "problem" that I see it is that the > prerender() method is specific to the page the bean is associated with. > This can be viewed as "good" or "bad"... > > The "good" view is a nice encapsulation of the page-related > functionality. Also, as you point out, it may serve to eliminate some > unnecassery work in some cases, which is nice. > > The "bad" view is that if you have essentially the same dropdown on > three different pages, as I understand it, you either (a) have to > duplicate that setup code in three different beans, (b) call some common > class from all three prerender() methods, or (c) call prerender() of one > of the beans from prerender() of the other two (assuming that's even > allowed). </snip> -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
