On 10/26/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
dude.
Tiles support was added, when tiles was still cool and <jsp:include>
was not the funniest (or still is) for doing that.
now we have facelets, why tiles ? :)
We should keep it for backward fun, but I am def. +1 on @deprecated
I wouldn't completely write Tiles off just yet :-)
I've been using Facelets for the last 3 or 4 months and I do like it
better than Tiles for a JSF application. However, I'm one of the
holdouts that haven't yet decided that JSP is completely evil :-) And
there are a few idiosyncrosies about Facelets that tend to get in the
way. For example, if I insert a JavaScript snippet I don't like
having to use "<=" instead of "<=" and various other XHTML stuff
that gets in the way occasionally. Plus if I have a JSP tag that I
really like but it's not a JSF component I can't use it with Facelets
without making it a JSF component.
I'm envisioning a way where Tiles can be modified to work a bit more
like Facelets - sort of a JSP-based Facelets. I'm sure that makes
many people cringe :-) Some of the newer developments going on in
Tiles 2 make it more useful IMO. Of course most of these are being
envisioned in a Struts-based world, but it's being done in a way that
it can be used from JSF as well. As much as people dislike JSP I
don't see it going away anytime soon and I think a better Tiles would
make it a lot easier to work with. But at the present time, Facelets
is my recommendation for JSF apps.
Greg
