On 8/30/05, Rick Reumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why, out of curiousity, do you insist on getting your hands dirty with low level HTTP protocol details like dynamically constructing URL patterns? Why, out of curiousity, do you insist on using GET queries (and thereby throw away nearly the entire JSF lifecycle)?
Let the application deal with application level things like components (hidden or not as need be), not implementation details. Like any other technology, JSF will be intuitive if you use it the way it's intended -- and it won't be if you don't.
Isn't "more intuitive" semantically meaningless, if we all can't even agree on what "intuitive" means? :-)
On 8/30/05, Mirek Novak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We were quite satisfied with this solution. But in situations where you
> have two or more parameters you would like to initialize your bean
> explicitly after all the parameters have been set.
>
> So, we have:
> <s:parameters bindTo="#{itemBean}"
> clear="#{itemBean.clear}"
> init="#{ itemBean.init}">
> <s:parameter name="itemName"/>
> <s:parameter name="itemCategory"/>
> </s:parameters>
>
> We examinate (in encodeBegin) requestMap if it contains "itemName" or
> "itemCategory". If this is the case, we will put this parameters into a map
> and call: clear(); init(parameters);
But why doesn't JSF have an easy way to support this by default?
Why, out of curiousity, do you insist on getting your hands dirty with low level HTTP protocol details like dynamically constructing URL patterns? Why, out of curiousity, do you insist on using GET queries (and thereby throw away nearly the entire JSF lifecycle)?
Let the application deal with application level things like components (hidden or not as need be), not implementation details. Like any other technology, JSF will be intuitive if you use it the way it's intended -- and it won't be if you don't.
Rick Hightower in article claims that JSF is more intutive than Struts
and, granted I'm new to JSF and experienced with Struts, but yet I
still claim that is a false statement. I'll post more on my findings
in another thread.
Isn't "more intuitive" semantically meaningless, if we all can't even agree on what "intuitive" means? :-)
--
Rick
Craig
