Sean Schofield wrote:
I agree with Rob. If you are using tiles and hence subview, then
pretty much everything needs to be in f:verbatim. This is definitely
a big shortcoming IMO but its not a MyFaces one. There were
understandable reasons why this couldn't be address in JSF 1.1 but its
also understandable that many people would be turned off by it.
Very few things can be perfect in this relative world, Sean ;-). I do
not find a major roadblock or big fuss about <f:verbatim>. I am happy to
have standard Jsf and myfaces tiles deliver a framework that can take me
half step further than what already exist.
As Craig pointed out this is being addressed in the upcoming specs. I
think JSF will make the jump to wide spread acceptance once the 1.2
spec and implementations are done. Don't hold your breath though,
this will likely take some time. Craig, if you had to guess on the
spec completion and a full RI (with an available JSP 2.1
implementation to go with) what timeframe would you put on that?
You're probably in a better position to guess than most of us
(although its only a guess.)
While waiting for a beter standardization, i am watching Struts-Shale.
Look like it is moving along quite well. Hope the tiles inplementation
in shale will be out before JavaOne that we can use BOTH tiles templates
and its multilanguage feature, where a whole tile will be replaced by
its selected language tile.
BaTien
DBGROUPS
sean
On 4/20/05, James Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the original post was misguided I think he must have meant
<f:subview> and a few other parent component tags.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Decker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20 April 2005 13:17
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: <f:verbatim> requirement
You can put unadorned html inside <f:view>. I haven't noticed that
myfaces
is stricter about this. It doesn't help much in any case if you're using
tiles and most of your pages are in <f:subview>. It also isn't all that
apparent whether or not a component renders it's children or not, so you
usually have to find out through trial and error.
----- Original Message -----
From: "tony kerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "MyFaces Discussion" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: <f:verbatim> requirement
before i pose the following question i want to provide kudos for the
myfaces team for their tremendous effort in implementing to the spec
(and then some) and getting the project elevated to an apache top
level.
please don't take my comments as criticism, just looking for some
rationale:
is the requirement to wrap non-jsf related html or jsp tags in
<f:verbatim> elements specified in the JSF spec or is it's strict
usage
open to interpretation?
obviously the requirement is a chore for developers and makes
resultant
pages more cluttered and difficult to read.
are there any plans to eliminate this requirement or is strict usage
the
way that the myfaces team interprets the spec?
it's kind of confusing when books like JSF in Action show unadorned
html
within an <f:view> parent and this style isn't supported in myfaces...
- Re: <f:verbatim> requirement Duong BaTien
-
