Anyway, Dakota I don't see the point to continue this argument since I honestly think you haven't really give a try to JSF or looked deeply into its design. You have shown more then one time your ignorance about it. Yes, it is a fallacy, but I am justifying an opinion here and not a fact ;).
I am not active a lot on this list (Maven 2 has been my favorite toy lately) but I read it quite often and I have seen you bashing JSF quite a lot in the last 6 months by making false statements or using personal attacks. I can't count how many times I have stopped myself from replying but I think this thread was the good opportunity because it was questionning Shale pertinence. Spread all the FUD you want but I think most people know your game now (is it the same expression in english??) . I have nothing against classic Struts, WebWork or action frameworks in general (and I deeply respect the people who have put so much time and efforts in those products). They have served me well in the past but I find them too much procedural oriented and after having worked with JSF I am a lot more productive with components oriented frameworks. I stay here mainly because of Shale, which is a very good product by the way. On 3/20/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You said it came from Struts. Jeesch` > > <snip> > On 3/20/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > These distinctions bo back before Java itself and are not Struts > > progeny. > > > > I have programmed in Smalltalk and used Swing API in the past so I > > have don't narrow my point of view to my Struts experience indeed. > > > </snip> > > > > > -- > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." > ~Dakota Jack~ > > -- Alexandre Poitras Québec, Canada --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
