I already use facelets and it is quite good to build aggregated components but I am looking for a friendly way to develop renderers, ie using a template language. For instance, I like a lot of tomahawk components but not the html produced so I need to write a new renderer if I want to use them. I don't think Facelets would be of any use in this case. But thank for the info.
On 4/8/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Poitras schrieb: > > Hi, > > > > I have seen Matthias's blog entry on Velocity-based renderers. I have > > use it succesfully and made some improvements to it but I was > > wondering if anyone has already made significant work in this aspect. > > > Not to my knowledge, the main problem I see with Matthias´s approach is > that it works on a per component level which is a performance problem. > Instead of rendering the raw html per component, you have to go through > the entire velocity layer per component which ends up in building the > velocity layer again and again (or at least having to parse the template > again and again) > > There are saner ways to get an easy componentization now, use facelets, > which is probably the best you can get for now. > > As much as I would love to see something Velocitish as JSF rendering > architecture (I used to use Jetspeed ans Turbine and know about the > advantages of velocity over a taglib system) > I only see one way to integrated it in a sane manner. > Write your own view handler and push renderers for every component you > need into it and write the binding code which binds the existing > controls into velocity. Given the fact that we have to deal with a fair > number of components here, it is a huge task, nobody has to followed so > far, to my knowledge. > > > It probably is better to go for facelets than to follow the we > integrated velocity into jsf approach. > > > > -- Alexandre Poitras Québec, Canada
