myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mike Kienenberger" <mkien...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New to MyFaces
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:16:23 GMT
Well, I think that because JSF is still new and is pluggable, you need
to watch for things that are going to reduce the shortcomings until
they're eventually fixed.

My short list of indispensible JSF must-haves includes
- facelets (for mixing raw text and jsf tags)
- facelets (for EL static functions)
- facelets (for composite components via templating)
- facelets (for templating)
- facelets (for quick code-based component development)
- tomahawk t:saveState (for page-scoping data)
- tomahawk t:dataList (for iterating over a list on a page)
- tomahawk sandbox:subForm (for partial page validation and submission)

I manage to get all of this with only two extensions:   facelets &
tomahawk.   Not too bad.

My list is going to be different from another person's list.   I don't
care about backwards jsp tag support.  I don't care about bookmarking.
  Right now, I don't even care about ajax.  My list is going to change
as time passes.

On 4/6/07, Iordanov, Borislav (GIC) <boris@miamidade.gov> wrote:
> It's precisely because of this argument that I actually started using
> JSF. My thinking was, no matter what, that's the industry standard,
> shortcomings will eventually be overcome etc. However, timing is
> important, while I don't want to use the framework of the day; I still
> have to complete the project of the day. The frustration comes from the
> fact that the current JSF problems are not so hard and shouldn't have
> been a surprise to the EG. My only explanation is that they simply
> haven't done any serious real world web development work. I might be
> wrong; I don't know any of them.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:mkienenb@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:38 AM
> To: MyFaces Discussion
> Subject: Re: New to MyFaces
>
> On 4/6/07, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/6/07, Iordanov, Borislav (GIC) <boris@miamidade.gov> wrote:
> > > tag, you have to use <h:graphicImage>. A "graphic image" as opposed
> to what?
> > > To a linux distribution CD image? To a "mental image"? Naming & API
> design
> > > is a serious problem, I'm not joking! Obviously having a component
> > > framework, any not completely idiotic component framework, is good.
> But then
> > > the details matter a lot when it comes to usability.
> >
> > How dull and trivial :-)  Just change it if it bothers you :-)
>
> Let me clarify.  JSF needs work, but at least complain about something
> substantial.   The lack of page-scoped beans is a good one.   The
> learning time for JSF is comprised primarily of learning the
> workarounds to the current implementation.   It's not that you cannot
> do something (well, there's likely to be a few things that you cannot
> do easily), but it's learning how to do it easily.
>
> I read through the pre-planning notes for JSF 2.0 last week.  It
> covers almost all of the weaknesses I've seen so far.   I think the
> JSF EG "gets it" and is going to address them.   Not today.  Not
> tomorrow.  Probably not even in the next year or two.  But eventually.
>   That's the problem with having a "Standard" rather than an
> individual project -- it takes time to get it accepted.   On the other
> hand, you'll get buy-in later because it's a standard, so maybe you
> can avoid framework-of-the-month syndrome down the road.   I.e., stop
> learning and start getting work done.
>

Mime
View raw message