myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Wessendorf <>
Subject Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Date Wed, 27 May 2009 09:37:30 GMT
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Werner Punz <> wrote:
> Actually here is the state of our current works on the component set:
> I have dojo covered currently in mine which still is undecided what to do
> with it by about 80% on the dijit side. The big points missing in my own one
> is the table and the tree. For the tree I have gathered the knowledge to
> auto ajax it. Trinidad PPR is supported out of the box!
> But I am currently on JSF 1.1 api and want to keep it that way until I
> really find time to upgrade it.
> My current biggest problem is lack of time, since I have to work 80% of the
> time in non myfaces related projects and the other 10-20% is reserved for
> myfaces 2.0
> Ganesh as far as I know has a pretty well working tag set which coveres dojo
> even more than I do, he has the table and tree already working,
> main difference is he is already on facelet while I tackle the problem on
> the component side.
> We could use the work of Ganesh as a starting point for a more extensive
> component facelets set, but we have to move Ganeshs work in one way or the
> other because it is already hosted outside on sourceforge AFAIR!

I'd like to see that we move in the bits. If he/Ganseh is OK with it...
A simple software grant should be enough, no real incubation would
be needed...

Another reason to take this, is this lib is already developed under an
OS development model! So all the changes are public and not on a
single computer...


> Outside of that there is the ominous rich client component set which Oracle
> wanted to opensource one day, Matthias knows more about it.
> That is the state of sets I am aware of we probably could use within the
> myfaces umbrella!
> Werner
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ganesh <> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural
>>> ones
>>> and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes I
>>> think
>>> it it is worth working on "something like that".
>>> IMHO we should first of all discuss the basis we want to work upon. Which
>>> are your reasons to prefer starting with jQuery instead of dojo? Here's
>>> my
>>> list of reasons why I chose dojo:
>> I personally like the jQuery syntax and it has not that big
>> (dependency) overhead.
>> That said I don't mind to have multiple libs supported, under such a
>> "umbrella" Facelets-
>> based library "MyFaces FOO Dojo", "MyFaces FOO jQuery" ...
>> -M
>>> - better industry support
>>> - larger widget base
>>> - more of a hype right now (seems to me ...)
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ganesh
>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
>>>> Facelets road, for new things.
>>>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
>>>> components; old-fashion
>>>> renderers are still, ok...
>>>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
>>>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a wrapper for
>>>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>>>> -M
>>>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>> Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
>>>>> dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF template/dojo
>>>>> library,
>>>>> it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0 out of
>>>>> the
>>>>> box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first project
>>>>> based
>>>>> on the new components will be productive around juli in a european
>>>>> bank.
>>>>> We've started working on this last autumn after I released this artivle
>>>>> in
>>>>> german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag libraries must
>>>>> be
>>>>> template based:
>>>>> The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make them a
>>>>> starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>>>>> Here's a link to the documentation:
>>>>> (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is
>>>>> currently
>>>>> offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Ganesh
>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>>>>>> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom)
>>>>>> components,
>>>>>> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
>>>>>> a JSF 2.0 set
>>>>>> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>>>>>> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>>>>>> component (via Facelets).
>>>>>> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
>>>>>> wrapper for some JS lib,
>>>>>> e.g. jQuery.
>>>>>> -Matthias

Matthias Wessendorf


View raw message