Yes I am looking forward to the Shale implementation of Tiles also. I noticed that the subview stuff has been completed (at least the first pass) so that is a definite positive step.
sean On 4/20/05, Duong BaTien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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... > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
