> The whole point of using something like > JSF is that you are moving away from writing direct html code. In the long > run, every single thing on your page should be a JSF component, including > the script portions.
I don't see myself writing all of my javascript via components anytime soon. IMO this would be overkill. Javascript is already difficult to maintain and follow, why add more complexity if you can avoid it? Yes I can envision myself starting to write more of the javascript in components now that faces is here. Certainly not all of it and not until I decide to switch my project to JSF (and even then, I will be converting a little bit at a time) > I think the <x:script> should be used even if it > doesn't do anything other than output a <script> tag. Switching to faces > would definitely require some reworking of your javascript since the whole > presentation paradigm has changed. That is why I prefer option #3 the most > since it seems the most flexible and is more component oriented. It may not > seem like the easiest thing because you have to change the way you've been > writing your javascript, but you've also had to change the way you're > writing your entire application. Earlier you said "+1". What was that in reference to? Option #3 or the combined Option #2 and Option#3 approach? I'd like to get started on some of the Option#2 stuff but I'll need someone to commit the patches. Also, I want to make sure that at a minimum there are no strong objections (even if there are some who don't feel its a big deal.) I'm willing to the work (with help from you guys when I'm stuck) and I think it will make it much easier for people to migrate to faces. > And it's not exactly rewriting your javascript, it's only changing how you > get references to the components on the page. True, but a lot of time went into writing and debugging that javascript. Why would I want to deal with this when there will be other more substantive things to focus on when migrating to JSF? > T sean
