Yeah,
I'm full aware of the situation described below. The main problem in
trinidad is that oracle uses him as foundation for ADF Rich Faces, and
that's the main reason why trinidad core isn't going to change dramatically.
More components should come together with the community. For example,
developing an application sometimes you need to make some components
that doesn't exist in trinidad component library (or any other
framework generally), and here is (for example) the power of the
community in sharing this components. Some of them will be rejected as
useless other as very useful. I remember my days working on Borland
Delphi, all the power of this tool was in tons and tons of community
contributed components. Why, because it was easy to make them. Of
course, today JSF developers are still making custom components, but
they to not relay on trinidad framework.
Another problem with suggestions is that when you need some component,
usually you can't wait so long time, in meantime you find another
solution, and after that there is no need for this component any more.
-- But this is just my point of view.
IE6 will be still around next 1-2 years, so unfortunately this will be
and still is a big pain .........
Luka Surija
+385 1 61 99 140
+385 98 434 061
[email protected]
I.Y. tim d.o.o.
Vrbik 3, HR-10000 Zagreb
www.iytim.hr
[email protected]
Andrew Robinson wrote:
Yes I agree with you.
The architecture needs more documentation, especially there are some
really important API classes that have no JavaDoc at all. As for the
maven-faces-plugin, I really dislike it. It does a nice job, but it is
really hard to work with and modify (speaking from experience). There
has been some discussion to move Trinidad to the new annotation
builder plug-in, but I personally don't know the status of that and
the opinion of the Trinidad contributors of changing the process.
Yeah, writing that WIKI gave me typer's cramp, it was the last straw
that pushed me to switch from QWERTY to the Dvorak keyboard layout, so
I agree that it should be more simple. FYI, I think that there are
maven archetypes out there that make it easier, but I am not 100%
certain there is an appropriate one.
As for more components, it is hard to write something that has no
ideas. No one has put any effort into suggesting, working on or
submitting new components to the Trinidad sandbox. So basically, if
there is no demand for specific components, why spend your own
personal time writing them and trying to guess what people want?
Skinning is a lot of work and I started one skin, but I lost my
motivation, but I think there is some that are working on one (search
the dev@ archives).
One problem I find with working with Trinidad is still supporting IE6
which makes life extremely miserable. The JS layer needs some major
refactoring (like no global functions and using a trinidad namespace
for all JS code for example) as well that makes any JS involved
component be more work than it should be.
Oracle still puts a lot of effort in Trinidad support and it still
uses Trinidad as a base for the rich client framework (if you want to
see the public demo, you can surf here:
http://jdevadf.oracle.com/adf-richclient-demo/faces/index.jspx) so
that is the primary reason that Trinidad's core framework is
constantly worked on, but since Oracle has their own renderers for
these components, there isn't the same focus on the Trinidad renderers
as there is on the framework.
Like all open source projects, there has to be a good user and
contributor community for it to truly prosper. Should people work on
new sandbox components and volunteer and start submitting patches for
the skin framework, progress would be seen.
As for how to contribute, it is as simple as creating JIRA tickets at
http://issues.apache.org and submitting patches. If a patch seems to
be growing old, then it is typical to ping the users@ or dev@ mailing
list requesting someone to look into it. It helps if there is adequate
comments. For any API changes, it is always best to discuss the change
on the dev@ mailing list. Before I became a committer I just helped
out on the mailing lists and submitted patches, it really is not too
difficult to get involved if the desire is there.
-Andrew
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Luka Surija<[email protected]> wrote:
Andrew,
it's always the same reason.
Trinidad is too complicated do extend without strong knowledge:
1. in it's architecture isn't well documented
2. in maven-faces-plugin
I'm familiar with your wiki page (
http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Facelets_and_JSF_1.1_maven-faces-plugin_Getting_started
) but, as you can see it takes too much effort to make a simple hello world
component and I think this is a main reason why there is almost no new
components in last 2 years. I'm using trinidad since m1-incubating version
and I'm tracking all the changes. In my opinion trinidad is potentialy
"the" best jsf framework currently available, but it lacks some features
to make it the best:
1. More components
2. easier component development
3. new AJAX under-layer to track component changes (to allow push technology
one day). See ICEFaces as a example how to make a framework so popular with
this technology. But in the background it lacks so many thing and nobody
cares. I've tried ICEFaces, and for "hello world" application is ok, but for
anything more complex, trinidad is 100x better and more developer friendly +
has better browser compatibility.
4. wow skin to make him more attractive.
I'm sure that many trinidad users (developers) are willing to contribute to
the community starting from my self if they knew how to do it in some
easier way.
Best regards,
Luka Surija
+385 1 61 99 140
+385 98 434 061
[email protected]
I.Y. tim d.o.o.
Vrbik 3, HR-10000 Zagreb
www.iytim.hr
[email protected]
Andrew Robinson wrote:
I would not jump to just saying "that's totally wrong ..." when there
is truth to the observation. I cannot speak for Tobago, but there are
areas of Trinidad that have not significantly changed in years. This
may give the impression that there is not much ongoing development.
What you find with Trinidad is that the server side framework is very
well supported, as well as the components classes, but the Renderers,
skins and JavaScript of Trinidad are very much neglected.
This is probably a result of many that extend Trinidad but do not
necessarily contribute those extensions back. There is a Trinidad
Sandbox, but unlike Tomahawk, there is no activity in it for the most
part. I am not sure why this is and what we can do to motivate our
users to provide new components and enhancements to existing
components.
So as a result, you will probably find that Trinidad is very solid,
the server side keeps up to date with other libraries and with some
new JSF technologies and there is a great community of support at the
framework level. Just what is lacking is active support of the
component offerings and the look and feel of Trinidad.
As Apache relies on its users quite a bit, new patches, and new
components are welcome, especially for the sandbox as it is a great
testing ground for new ideas without having to perform all the
architectural discussions up front. Then components can be brought
into the core as they gain popularity and their architecture can be
standardized if not already.
-Andrew
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Christian Groove
<[email protected]> wrote:
Salut
Hi All,
We are developing a web application with myfaces.
That's fine, JSF is the cool think. I worked with
Tobago, that comes with a great layout manager
and some cool widgets.
It is not my intention to overwhelm that nice
project but it seems to be dead. The development
that's totally wrong ...
of new widgets seems not to proceed so you may
better look to other Taglibs like Richfaces, Icefaces.
Groovy
This application needs proper navigation and UI .I have observed
Trinidad
has good navigation practices and other utilities.Tobago has some good
layouts but not good navigation practices.both these technologies have
featurs like PPR.
could some one plaese advice us which is the better technology and the
distinct features of these technologies.
Thanks,
Srikanth
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
