Good idea!

regards,

Martin

On 3/16/07, Adrian Mitev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've posted RFE for jsf 2.0 [1] about api for component development.

https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=246

2007/3/15, Jörn Zaefferer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Absolutely! The JSF API itself isn't enough to write components without
duplicating tons of code. You either do duplication, or depend on a
particular implementation of the API.
>
> And this isn't just a problem with JSF alone. I wanted to replace the
default month renderer on tomahawks schedule component. I've now ended by
extending Renderer directly, I can't even reuse a single line of the
AbstractWhateverScheduleRenderers. Instead I have to
duplicate parts of them in my own renderer.
>
> About the three classes: When I want to quickly create my own component
for handle a particular problem, I need only the component class itself and
my facelets taglib. The component can do the rendering.
>
> Once I'd have those components ready to publish to a greater audience I
wouldn't mind writing renderer and tag classes.
>
>
> On 3/15/07, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jeff Bischoff schrieb:
> > > I agree, it would be great if that were part of the distro. Problem
is,
> > > Facelets still isn't officially supported by Tomahawk, and thus
> > > developers don't have to ensure their components will work in
Facelets,
> > > let alone provide the configuration and handler classes. Seems like a
> > > huge number of the userbase is already using or migrating to Facelets,
> > > though, so I would expect to see Facelet support improve over time.
This
> > > is, of course, a community project!
> > >
> > Getting away from the discussion itself...
> >
> > Actually having facelets in would be a great welcome for the component
> > devs too, I have been playing around with the thought of having parts
> > of the stuff I am doing being moved into the facelets domain, sort of
> > like a tomahawk facelets.
> > Problem is I cannot do it in the borders of the Tomahawk project
> > currently because those components would only work with facelets.
> > (There was a discussion in the myfaces list a while ago)
> >
> > I will give a description of the core problem.
> >
> > Simple JSF control == 3 classes (one tag class, one component class, one
> > renderer clasS)
> > two xml file entries
> >
> > each class is 100 locs code min and the renderer uses
> > a crude servlet like outputwriter api to the worst.
> > 90% of this code normally is just glue code.
> >
> > 90% of most of this code probably could be replaced by simply facelet
> > tags and only specialized stuff would have to be coded in the component
> > api itself.
> >
> > The component api probably is the biggest problem JSF has in my opinion
> > and it prevents a lot of people jumping onto the ship.
> > Facelets would be an easy entry point to add new components.
> >
> >
> > Heck everything which makes things easier and helps people to ease
> > coding is welcome, it does not have to be facelets.
> >
> >
>
>




--

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

Reply via email to