Comments inline: On 4/6/07, Iordanov, Borislav (GIC) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That fact that you can use different view technology is cool, obviously. The fact that you _*have*_ to use other view technologies than the one supported "out of the box" is ridiculous (to me obviously also).
You don't _have_ to use other view technologies. You _can_ if you want to make your life easier. Again, the point is not that JSF is bad because it has components and a sort
of a pluggable architecture (as all decent software does these days), I don't see where I implied that…, the point is that it covers perhaps the most popular area of programming today, with years of experience and tons of other frameworks exploring options and showing what works and what doesn't, and it does with a lot of mistakes.
No matter how many times I read that sentence, I cannot make sense of it. ------------------------------
*From:* Gary VanMatre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Friday, April 06, 2007 11:53 AM *To:* MyFaces Discussion *Subject:* RE: Re: New to MyFaces >From: "Iordanov, Borislav (GIC)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think the existence of facelets, the motivation behind it, show JSF's > failure to deliver on its promise (after so many years!). I haven't > looked into Facelets, not that I'm afraid to learn some new "view > technology". I just don't want to impose this "bug fix" to people that > have already invested time in learning and using JSP pages, with custom > tag libraries developed etc (is Facelets backwards compatible with JSP? > probably not). > I disagree with this statement. I believe that it says just the opposite. It would have been very easy for the first draft of the JSF specification to be completely focused on a single templating solution (JSP). What I find interesting is that the focus was on building an API that was extensible and not targeted at a specific template technology. I don't think that JSP will go anywhere anytime soon. The JSF/JSP support is much better in JSF 1.2. However, hopefully the work done with Facelets and Shale Clay (see how I got a plug in there) will open the doors for more than one method of creating JSF view's. I'd like to see an option that completly insulates the developer from markup. A design mode that would be like the rich tools for creating fat GUI's with all kinds of reuse through composition options and visual form inheritance. At that point, the ability to plugin multiple render kits would be really handy. Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Werner Punz > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:36 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: New to MyFaces > > Iordanov, Borislav (GIC) schrieb: > > I'm not sure what "statistics" you are looking for. I haven't done an > > industry analysis. But in general, JSF is heavyweight machinery > without > > any substantial benefit. Simple things are complicated and complicated > > things impossible. It was obviously designed by (probably smart, Java > > knowledgeable) people that have no serious experience with web > > development. A well-known example is that it still doesn't work well > > with JSP (a technology for which JSF was designed from the start!) and > > it probably never will. > > > > > > JSF 1.2 does (myfaces soon will have jsf 1.2 level) > and facelets basically do what jsp does. You basically > speak about the mixin problems of html and jsf (verbatim tags) > > this problem is gone in the jsf 1.2 spec, and in facelets, facelets also > eliminates problems introduced by jsp... >
-- Grant Smith
