>From: Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Yee CN wrote:
> > I am in the middle of migrating to facelets and at the same time planning
> > for Shale. It seems to me that Shale Clay and Facelets templating overlaps
> > to a large degree. Is there any guideline on whether the two should/can
> > coexist and which one should be use for any particular circumstances?
>
> They probably can co-exist, but I'd strongly recommend not trying to
> make them ;-)
>
> You're right, they do overlap a lot. In fact I think they're pretty
> close to functionally equivalent, bar syntactic differences and a few
> minor points. I don't know Clay well enough to say that with certainty,
> though, so if Gary shoots me you'll know why ;-).
>
> So my advice would be to pick either one or the other. Personally I did
> as you are doing: started using JSF, then started using Facelets, then
> added Shale into the mix. You can pick and choose which bits of Shale
> you use, adding in each feature as you have need for it, so this works
> well. And if you did want to start using Facelets today but switch to
> Clay later, it shouldn't be too big a deal.
>
> You could also start using Clay directly, without having to immediately
> start using any of the rest of Shale until you're ready to do so. With
> the possible exception of the View Controller feature, I don't think
> Clay requires much else.
>
> Gary will no doubt be able to add additional insight.
>
>
> Yee CN wrote:
> > I am in the middle of migrating to facelets and at the same time planning
> > for Shale. It seems to me that Shale Clay and Facelets templating overlaps
> > to a large degree. Is there any guideline on whether the two should/can
> > coexist and which one should be use for any particular circumstances?
>
> They probably can co-exist, but I'd strongly recommend not trying to
> make them ;-)
>
> You're right, they do overlap a lot. In fact I think they're pretty
> close to functionally equivalent, bar syntactic differences and a few
> minor points. I don't know Clay well enough to say that with certainty,
> though, so if Gary shoots me you'll know why ;-).
>
> So my advice would be to pick either one or the other. Personally I did
> as you are doing: started using JSF, then started using Facelets, then
> added Shale into the mix. You can pick and choose which bits of Shale
> you use, adding in each feature as you have need for it, so this works
> well. And if you did want to start using Facelets today but switch to
> Clay later, it shouldn't be too big a deal.
>
> You could also start using Clay directly, without having to immediately
> start using any of the rest of Shale until you're ready to do so. With
> the possible exception of the View Controller feature, I don't think
> Clay requires much else.
>
> Gary will no doubt be able to add additional insight.
>
This blog post is the first Shale Clay vs. Facelets (http://weblogs.java.net/blog/edburns/archive/2005/04/javaserver_face_1.html).
It's kind of funny. Jacob states that he is going to spend the weekend developing what becomes facelets. I'm chiming in saying, check out Shale.
I might have bragging rights for trying it first but I'm not going even attempt to guess how many weekends I had been working on what became Clay. Ya, so what? It only took him a weekend :-)
Gary
> L.
>
