myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luka Surija <l...@iytim.hr>
Subject Re: Trinidad and JSF 2.0
Date Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:20:35 GMT

On 12/09/2009 01:22 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Luka Surija<luka@iytim.hr>  wrote:
>    
>> Hi,
>> Sorry for "jumping into the topic" but I have a question regarding
>> compatibility issue.
>> Does it mean that using FacesBean instead of JSF 2.0 PSS can introduce
>> possible component incompatibility with another JSF 2 libraries like
>> RichFaces, PrimeFaces, IceFaces?. Or did I miss something?
>>      
> nope; but even with JSF 2.0 I still think there maybe some issues.
> As the JS/Ajax is not complete on the standard (e.g. lack of support
> for uploads) but all major frameworks have that. I expect a mixture of
> vanilla JS and custom stuff... Spec will evolve over time....
>    
Yeah, that sucks also. What's the point of spec and standards when 
implementations aren't compatible.
>    
>> My personal opinion is that Trinidad will gain more users if there's no more
>> compatibility issues with other JSF libraries. Trinidadis relay a powerful
>> library, but has lack of some visual components. In that case more
>> developers will decide to go with trinidad as ground library and using other
>> components as add-ons.
>>      
> most big issue is that the default skin totally sucks :-)
>    
After we finish our product we are wiling to give you our skin. It's not 
perfect but is much better then default one.
>    
>> Regards,
>>
>> Luka Surija
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>      
>>> quick comment...
>>>
>>> one reason to keep that structure is that the components (trinidad) offer
>>> more APIs and behavior.
>>>
>>> Also, not sure if we really want to go with JSF 2.0's partial state
>>> saving.
>>> Looks like FacesBean has still some advantages.
>>>
>>> Gabrielle, can you provide some data here ?
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Jan-Kees van Andel
>>> <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> I'm just asking this out of curiosity, so no offense intended. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I see a lot of JSF 2.0 related activity in Trinidad and I was
>>>> wondering, why not leverage the JSF 2.0 code in MyFaces Core?
>>>> Are there (legacy) reasons to keep the UIX classes and not replace
>>>> them (maybe partially) with their JSF 2.0 equivalents?
>>>>
>>>> I can imagine that interoperability with other libraries increases
>>>> when Trinidad builds on (or extends) the JSF 2.0 API.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jan-Kees
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>      
>
>
>    

Mime
View raw message