Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8975 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2006 08:34:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Mar 2006 08:34:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 34979 invoked by uid 500); 29 Mar 2006 08:34:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 34941 invoked by uid 500); 29 Mar 2006 08:34:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 34928 invoked by uid 99); 29 Mar 2006 08:34:49 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:34:49 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of gcjmu-myfaces-dev@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.91.229.2] (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:34:48 -0800 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FOW86-0002Y0-7b for dev@myfaces.apache.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:34:14 +0200 Received: from 195.78.47.10 ([195.78.47.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:34:14 +0200 Received: from werpu by 195.78.47.10 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:34:14 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: dev@myfaces.apache.org From: Werner Punz Subject: Re: Playing round with 1.5 features Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:33:38 +0200 Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <12081822.199591143479396147.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Reply-To: werpu@gmx.at Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.78.47.10 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) In-Reply-To: Sender: news X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Travis Reeder schrieb: > I'm all for anything that makes component writing easier, it's pretty > complex right now, so many places to make mistakes and makes it hard for > a newbie to start making components. > Actually there are two areas which components probably have to tackle api wise. a) The number of artefacts and glue code which are a huge burden b) The way the markup is generated. The renderers have the basic problem of having to handcode the markup via sending strings to writer objects. This gives maximum performance due to linear runtime complexity, but is a huge burden on the component developers. a split between data and markup rendering programmingwise would be saner. pushing the whole subrendering into something more readable would improve comfort. For instance if they subrendering could be pushed into something like velocity you suddenly would have the component, the bingings to the jsp or whatever subsystems and the renderer basically would be gathering data (mostly just pushing the component directly in) and then rendering it away via a sane templating markup. The main problem I see is performance, so in the end we probably are stuck with it or have to move over to client side componentization (which is the other approach, omit the api entirely as much as possible and move to a higher abstraction level like facelets do it)