On 2/28/06, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This statement is a bit too simplistic so that it actually distorts reality a bit :-). The dependence of Clay on the rest of Shale is that you need to include shale-core.jar in your webapp. You do not have to care about anything else Shale provides, if you do not care about it -- just pay attention to the specific configuration details related to Clay.
Clay and Facelets overlap in functionality, but each have their own strengths. And, to the consternation of myopic readers who believe that anyone claiming "A is good" automatically assumes "B is bad" :-), I will hereby go on record as saying that both of these technologies are great! They both deserve your attention to see if one or the other matches your needs more closely.
Of course, I'll say the same thing if you find that standard JSF support for JSP works out for you :-). There is more than one right answer in this space.
Craig
Seam:
Extended entity management persistence (EJB3 or hibernate)
Conversation context (multiple windows supported with server side
state. Basically a long running transaction)
Annotation demarcation of maneged beans
Annotate injection and outjection of context variables
Interception of action method (helpful for things like making sure the
user has authenticated)
Validation via JSF or by backing bean w/ the hibernate validator
(write the validation on your entity/data beans instead of in the UI)
Shale I haven't used, from the research I have done, it is a subset of
Seam's functionality. What seems nice is the smaller footprint and
lesser learning curve than Seam. I debated it but wanted the
functionality of Seam.
Clay, looked briefly at it, but the majority of people side with
facelets. Clay is bound to Shale, so you can't use Clay by itself.
This statement is a bit too simplistic so that it actually distorts reality a bit :-). The dependence of Clay on the rest of Shale is that you need to include shale-core.jar in your webapp. You do not have to care about anything else Shale provides, if you do not care about it -- just pay attention to the specific configuration details related to Clay.
Facelets:
Practically an absolute must. You may as well use JSPs and servlets if
you don't have facelets IMO. JSF is practically useless without it.
Multi-layered Templating
Custom tag definitions
JSTL support
High degree of extensibility
Easier to write components (no tags or TLD files needed)
EL-Anywhere support (JSF 1.2)
Clay and Facelets overlap in functionality, but each have their own strengths. And, to the consternation of myopic readers who believe that anyone claiming "A is good" automatically assumes "B is bad" :-), I will hereby go on record as saying that both of these technologies are great! They both deserve your attention to see if one or the other matches your needs more closely.
Of course, I'll say the same thing if you find that standard JSF support for JSP works out for you :-). There is more than one right answer in this space.
Craig
My recommendation:
MyFaces+JBoss-Seam+Facelets for your heavy functionality site
MyFaces+Shale+Facelets for your small-medium site without EJB3 Entity
managers or hibernate persistence.
On 2/28/06, Mike Kienenberger < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SEAM gives you database integration (EJB3?), Shale provides a variety
> of things (dialogs, lifecycle hooks, testing framework, commons
> validator to name a few), Clay and Facelets provide you with
> alternatives to using jsp both as an end-user as well as a component
> developer. Facelets also provides some JSF 1.2 functionality when
> using it with MyFaces. Note that I have only used Facelets, so some
> of the details may be wrong for other systems.
>
> I recommend that you go to the web pages for each of the above
> projects and read the overview of the project.
>
> On 2/28/06, Legolas Woodland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi
> > Thank you for reading my post.
> > I want to know what additional features SEAM from jboss ,Clay , Shale
> > from Apache and Facelets
> > bring to jsf.
> > I will be happy if some one give me a simple answer.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> >
>
