Then you shouldn't have posted such garbage to begin with. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but when you post to a public forum such as this one, you expose yourself to public criticism and review. If you cannot back up your assertions with substance then your assertions are likely to be rejected.
I have been through the pain of writing huge servlet-based systems, then JSP, then JSF with JSP, and finally settled happily on JSF with Facelets. This a key element to being a programmer - moving with and keeping up with technology. If you find that this is too burdensome, you may wish to question your chosen profession. On 4/6/07, Iordanov, Borislav (GIC) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You've missed the point. Unfortunately, I don't know how to explain it more clearly. Sorry ;( -----Original Message----- From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:30 AM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: New to MyFaces On 4/6/07, Iordanov, Borislav (GIC) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > tag, you have to use <h:graphicImage>. A "graphic image" as opposed to what? > To a linux distribution CD image? To a "mental image"? Naming & API design > is a serious problem, I'm not joking! Obviously having a component > framework, any not completely idiotic component framework, is good. But then > the details matter a lot when it comes to usability. How dull and trivial :-) Just change it if it bothers you :-) <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE facelet-taglib PUBLIC "-//Sun Microsystems, Inc.//DTD Facelet Taglib 1.0//EN" "http://java.sun.com/dtd/facelet-taglib_1_0.dtd";> <facelet-taglib> <namespace>http://java.sun.com/jsf/html</namespace> <tag> <tag-name>img</tag-name> <component> <component-type>javax.faces.HtmlGraphicImage</component-type> <renderer-type>javax.faces.Image</renderer-type> </component> </tag> </facelet-taglib>
-- Grant Smith
