Preston, none of those examples are J2EE. They can be used with J2EE but they have nothing to do with anything beyond J2SE.
On 12/13/05, Preston Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't know what the future will hold. JSF may win the day on nothing > > but marketing alone. It has the force of being a "standard", and while > > not all standards ultimately succeed, it certainly is a leg up on other > > I would argue that with Java (J2EE specifically) "standards" have largely > just "emerged". Think of all the examples. > > Tomcat > Ant > Struts > JUnit > Hibernate > > That's, by and large, the "standard" J2EE toolkit. And by that I mean that > while we may have WebSphere, Tapestry, Maven, EJBs, etc. there's a certain > concensus out there and the tools in the first list are what have the > mindshare now. > > So my point of interest is this. JSF, from what I'm seeing here > (especially when the actual developers of Struts talk about their reasons > for jumping to JSF) and reading elsewhere is actually succeeding IN SPITE > of the fact that it's not sitting in the OpenSource non-standard seat, as > Tapestry is. I find this interesting. It was bound to happen eventually, > that one of Sun's reference implementations would actually become a > standard. I know, EJB is a standard. But look how many people have been > abandoning that in favor of more lightweight solutions, once those > solutions presented themselves. > > So I think the fact that JSF is getting traction IN SPITE of the fact that > it isn't quite as open, hasn't been open sourced as long as Tapestry, etc. > is a testament to the fact that developers appear to like it. I just > wanted to know (and you all have been immensely helpful in this respect) > if you could get done with it, what you can with Struts. Thus the question > wasn't "Is JSF better than Struts?" The question was "Is JSF ready?" > > And that is the question for me. I know what I can and can't do in Struts. > I've been programming with it for 5 years. I know its power and I also > know I've been involved with some amazingly convoluted hacks to make it do > what we needed. A framework that handles more of the request/response > plumbing for me is welcome. A framework where *maybe* I can use tools that > are WYSIWYG if I want is appealling after 5 years of hand-coding XML > descriptor files that are gigantic. A framework that handles requests and > responses and doesn't push as far back into the business tier is welcome > to me. > > So I like the idea of JSF. Just like I like the idea of Tapestry and even > Ruby on Rails. I just wanted to know if you could write a JSF app today > and be reasonably sure that you could do easy validation on the server, be > relatively efficient in it and not run into major snafus with application > server differences. > > Preston > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
