myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig McClanahan <craig...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Shale for 2.x? (was Re: RoadMap)
Date Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:22:49 GMT
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:13:01 -0600, Heath Borders
<heath.borders@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just read the Shale proposal, and I don't see why we can't have both
> sides work together on this.
> 
> Assuming that the View tier of Shale is pluggable, I don't see why
> MyFaces couldn't have the responsibility of developing a plugin for
> the view.

It depends on what you mean by the "view tier".

Shale very deliberately presumes the presence of JSF as a foundation
technology.  That means that, among other things, Shale does not need
to reinvent a bunch of technology that JSF already provides (in
particular, managed beans, page navigation, the request processing
lifecycle for form submits, and value/method binding expressions). 
Ironically, Shale itself doesn't care a lot about which actual JSF
components you are using :-).  It wants JSF for its framework
capabilities.  In turn, this lets the development of Shale focus on
the areas that JSF does not, or does not yet, cover.

You still get a form of view tier pluggability for Shale, but it is by
virtue of the fact that JSF lets you plug in alternate ViewHandlers --
any ViewHandler that MyFaces might wish to provide will work with
Shale (as long as it conforms to the JSF spec requirements).  But that
is just one example of what Shale gains by assuming JSF in the first
place, instead of trying to pretend to plug into any possible UI
component framework.  In that scenario, Shale would have to create
redundant support for things JSF already does.  There are more
interesting problems to focus on than reinventing those particular
wheels.

So far, however, the Struts developers have been unwilling to make the
leap to "assume JSF as a base technology, then build on top" -- the
very assumption that is the foundation to the whole idea.

Craig McClanahan

> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:46:57 +0100, carsten@wildehor.de
> <carsten@wildehor.de> wrote:
> >
> > What is the main pruposal of MyFaces? I see
> > a: the need of an open source implementation of JSF and
> > b: like the idea to implement 'extras' to give the open source
> > implamantation a real meaning to use it *g*
> >
> > In my opinion shale and similar projects are trying to fill a gap for
> > existing applications or programmers which have not the possibility to
> > change to jsf completly. I developed a application for a company with realy
> > many cooperations so struts ore jsf was no alternative for us because of
> > branding problems and similars. I would realy like to see the focus of the
> > MyFaces on the JSF implementation with performance and stability with the
> > plus of realy needed or 'neat' components to higher the aceptance. Trying to
> > assimilate the one or other project should be the third or further focus to
> > get some attention for developers which have not the chance to decide which
> > technology to use but giving them a plus for the decicionmaker. My opinion
> > is definetly egoistic but i think it is the only chance to deliver
> > extraordinary good code. (even better than sun's (sooorry lars *g* )).
> >
> > It that sense and do not flame me please
> >
> > Carsten Fregin
> >
> > P.S.
> > This is my 11 beer with my investor so please are mercyfull with my bad
> > english and typos *g*
> >
> 
> 
> --
> -Heath Borders-Wing
> hborders@mail.win.org
>

Mime
View raw message