I did my best to see if this was already addressed by searching mail archives. All I found so far is a comment from Craig here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-user&m=112604395721097&w=2 Craig writes: "If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture." I'm in a situation where I'm consulting in a corporate environment. I really love what shale has to offer, but I'm concerned about adopting things a bit too early. I checked out the "API Stability" section of the project docs (http://struts.apache.org/struts-shale/api-stability.html - which is great, btw) and I'm trying to answer the question: What components of shale can I integrate into a JSF app and get the biggest benefit from, without sacrificing stability at the functional and API level? For instance, shale-core is a mixture of Developing and Evolving packages at both the Application and Framework level. If I'm writing and enterprise app that's going to production in 6 months, how do I choose wisely? :-) I've included the start of a package dependency diagram that might help - it's incomplete. I figured somebody might know this by heart, and could finish it quickly :-) Feel free to distribute. I've spent the past several days doing research on web app frameworks and JSF is a contender for *this environment* - but only becomes more promising with offerings like facelets and shale (IMHO). Thanks, -Troy Troy J. Kelley E-gineering, LLC 10401 North Meridian Street | Suite 150 Indianapolis, IN | 46290 | 317.616.3974 www.e-gineering.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
