Hi Igor, 

all of our web development environments are pretty fragile - there are just
too many components with different versions and different implementations,
and I think everybody had his or her nightmare experiences. 

I need to say that for me Facelets was the only exception. It just worked
out of the box. 

Frank Felix

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Marakov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 8:53 AM
To: 'MyFaces Discussion'
Subject: RE: JSF and Tiles

Cool has nothing to do with it. Examples are there to provide starting point
for the technology and supposed to be running 'out of the box'. If I have
problems getting examples for two consecutive releases to work, something
tells me that risk of using this particular technology in real life is
unacceptably high.

Like I said, it is just my personal opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Igor


-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Winer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 10:14 PM
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: JSF and Tiles

Uh, so basically you're saying you never actually used it, but you can also
claim it'll be a year before it's ready for a serious production app?  Not
cool...

-- Adam



On 3/26/06, Igor Marakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't seen 1.1 version. Dropped the idea after not being able to 
> get examples for 1.0.6 and 1.0.7 to work.
>
> Igor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Winer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 11:53 AM
> To: MyFaces Discussion
> Subject: Re: JSF and Tiles
>
> On 3/25/06, Igor Marakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the other hand, both Facelets and Shale/Clay are still too (IMO)
> immature
> > to become a basis for serious production app. Next year maybe...
>
> Have you used Facelets recently?  In my opinion, Facelets 1.1 is very 
> much ready for prime time.  And given my day job, I have very high 
> standards for "ready for prime time".
>
> If I were starting a new project today, I wouldn't consider using JSPs 
> (much less Tiles).
>
> -- Adam Winer
>
>
>


Reply via email to