On 7/20/07, Zied Hamdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Rlubke,
I'm new to JSF, these last 3 months are the first project where I use it,
even though I've tried many times to convince my company to use it. It ended
up that I use it for my own society I left them out :-). So...
>That said, my hats off to the MyFaces folks for having
the number of subprojects they have. It says a lot about JSF as a
technology.
I followed the birth of the idea of JSF in 2002 (If my memory is ok)
FWIW, it was May 2001 or thereabouts. Not sure when
that very first meeting in Menlo Park was.
>Sorry. That's just gross mis-information.
I'm sorry I have read this in the popular manning publication that's a 3
years old book, things have surely changed since the book was written, so
apologizes if I underjudged the RI, but again in the Sun tech days, a Sun
representer said the Reference Implementation's goal is to validate the
fesability of a specification, surely it doesn't mean it's of worse quality
but I interpreted it as a validation process where the focus isn't on
fitness. So sorry again for what I've said ;-).
This can be true of RIs in general, and was to some extent
true of the initial RI in 1.0. It's definitely not true today.
If my memory serves, Sun persisted in saying the same
things about the JDK itself back in its 1.0 days, way back
in '96.
BTW, specifically, Ryan deserves worlds of credit for getting
the RI to where it is today, so take it easy on the guy. :)
-- Adam
2007/7/20, rlubke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Zied Hamdi-2 wrote:
> >
> > I'd say you're a little "direct" with the MyFaces team, comparing the RI
> > and
> > MyFaces with all its subprojects is a little "unfair" comparaison seen
> > that
> > the RI doesn't have to handle nor ajax features nor css beside the fact
> > that
> > it's definitely less rich in its components,
> >
>
> True enough. For the longest time, the RI only provided what the spec
> required. This isn't 100% true now. We do have a small sandbox with
> AJAX components. That said, my hats off to the MyFaces folks for having
> the number of subprojects they have. It says a lot about JSF as a
> technology.
>
>
> Zied Hamdi-2 wrote:
> >
> > in addition to the fact that
> > MyFaces is not "just" Tomahawk, and that the RI is only a sort of
"testing
> > labs" with no performance objectives.
> >
>
> Sorry. That's just gross mis-information.
> The 1.2 RI has been out for over a year and performance
> has been a key goal during that period.
> Maybe you should look at this:
>
>
http://blogs.sun.com/rlubke/entry/jsf_ri_performance_scalability
>
> The 1.2 RI is being used in production and is production quality.
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Myfaces-1.2.0-setup-issues-%28again%29-tf4112450.html#a11711144
> Sent from the MyFaces - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Zied Hamdi
zatreex.sourceforge.net
