Hi, We live in the world where everything need to move forward and evolve. Otherwise it is recognized as dead. That is the reality. I was using Trinidad few years ago. It was fine, but JSF 2.0 has arrived and I have switched to PrimeFaces, which seems to be more elegant and widgets fits real life software demands. But of course still I see Trinidad as rock solid software.
BR, ora1521 2012/6/19 Scott O'Bryan <[email protected]> > Hey all, > > I can see the many points here, let me just chime in, however, on what > Leonardo said. > > Part of determining a JSF library is finding the one that works right > for you. Trinidad has (for a long time) not bad any major increases > in functionality. While I do not consider the product dead, I can see > some of the frustration. > > The thing about open source, however, is that it requires community > involvement. This isn't a commercial product. I know the developers > that I work with have a keen interest in maintaining Trinidad and we > answer questions and update things as best they can. If there is some > functionality you'd like to see in Trinidad, please open up a > discussion on the dev list about it. We'd like to hear from you. > > If you decide Trinidad isn't right for you, I have heard good great > things about PrimeFaces although I've never used it myself. The > renderkit I generally use in my day to day development is ADFFaces > which is a Trinidad derivative from Oracle. > > Scott > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 19, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Manuel > > > > What I mean is the API in Trinidad has a good design and is very > > flexible and extensible. > > > > regards, > > > > Leonardo > > > > 2012/6/19 Manuel Hartl <[email protected]>: > >> hi Leonardo, > >> > >> It is easy to have a stable API when rarely anything is changed. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Manuel. > >> > >> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> Trinidad is considered "rock solid". Its API is stable, well tested > >>> and it offers outstanding browser compatibility (now you get why it > >>> doesn't look too fancy). > >>> > >>> Most of the interest of MyFaces developers these years has been around > >>> JSF spec, MyFaces Core and MyFaces CODI (future top level project > >>> Apache DeltaSpike), which have primary importance for JSF and are > >>> critical parts in the day-to-day work. I think it will be more > >>> interest in the future to do something in the component libraries, but > >>> for now the priorities comes first. > >>> > >>> At the end, the way you do the UI depends of your needs. > >>> > >>> regards, > >>> > >>> Leonardo Uribe > >>> > >>> 2012/6/19 Çağatay Çivici <[email protected]>: > >>>> On 19.Haz.2012, at 03:34, Jim May wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> -- Do you use another component library (RichFaces, ICEFaces -- > >>>>>> what else is available)? > >>>> PrimeFaces is currently way more popular than any other JSF UI > library. > >>>> > >>>> > http://www.google.com/trends/?q=primefaces,richfaces,icefaces&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 > >>>> > >>>> Çağatay Çivici > >>>> Principal Consultant > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Dipl. Inform. Manuel Hartl > >> Software Architect > >> > >> FlexSecure-Logo KobilGroup-Logo > >> > >> FlexSecure GmbH > >> Industriestr. 12 > >> D - 64297 Darmstadt > >> Tel: +49 (0) 6151 501 23-18 > >> Fax: +49 (0) 6151 501 23-19 > >> > >> E-Mail: [email protected] > >> Internet: www.flexsecure.de > >> > >> Geschäftsführer: > >> Erwin Stallenberger, Markus Ruppert > >> > >> Amtsgericht Darmstadt HRB 8036 > >> Umsatzsteuernummer: DE 214745269 > >> >
