Mailing-List: contact users-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of mkienenb@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.235 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=l48J7hZBhVodP7mMYXbP6wT2cBC6H5ZRDCMhzGgzrLUVJCnHBjpoN7ihOIqE0D2IZWupyCBo3KmKnVjuus6bcE3RxVvMbY/Hxjgd1w7cg/bNmpv97TXItKAbO0YDCMkTZQnwl/yG42wl+oHsYpg2wZZAxwAvoggR591PBhRSFHE=
Message-ID: <8f985b960704060822h524050a0o5405940cd55c84d4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:22:44 -0400
From: "Mike Kienenberger" <mkienenb@gmail.com>
To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Re: New to MyFaces
In-Reply-To: <7CA6ED41F8109F47999F0D4B5C97DC6A01611793@s0141207.miamidade.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ev50q0$mj1$1@sea.gmane.org>
	 <7CA6ED41F8109F47999F0D4B5C97DC6A01611793@s0141207.miamidade.gov>

The statement that you want to continue to use JSPs, and yet complain
that JSF is "heavyweight machinery without any substantial benefit"
seems contradictory to me.

In my opinion, backed up by two-years of JSF experience, the biggest
flaw of JSF was attempting to use JSPs and all the unnecessary
complexity that they bring.   What point does it serve to write jsp
tag handlers and jsp tld files?   Facelets proves that they add no
value since you can do the same tasks without them.   Why use
difficult-to-debug pages-compiled-as-java-code jsp processors when
Facelets shows you can get the same functionality and better
performance without it?

No, facelets is not backwards compatible to JSP, although you can mix
JSP and Facelets pages in the same application.   And good riddance!
 Facelets isn't backward compatible to System.out.println() statements
either :-)

I'm sorry you wasted a lot of time developing jsp tags.  I wasted a
lot of time developing struts actions, but I'm not all that sad to see
them gone.

I know that there are those who are working on allowing
JSP-compatiblity tags in facelets.   Seems like a step backwards to
me, but even that will likely happen at some point.

JSF is component-based development.   It's nice to see that the Java
world is finally catching up to what WebObjects provided more than 11
years ago.   I hope it doesn't take another 11 to catch up to where
WebObjects is now (especially considering that WebObjects hast
stagnated the last 5 years, as near as I can tell).

My job is to provide solutions to problems, not constantly reinvent
the wheel every time I need to display some kind of output.   I'm
still waiting for the time when I can design a component, drop it in a
palette, then drag it out and configure it on my page in a WYSIWYG
manner.   JSF hasn't reached that point yet, but it's at least a
possibility.   And facelets allows me to create composite components
in less than a minute.

On 4/6/07, Iordanov, Borislav (GIC) <boris@miamidade.gov> wrote:
> I think the existence of facelets, the motivation behind it, show JSF's
> failure to deliver on its promise (after so many years!). I haven't
> looked into Facelets, not that I'm afraid to learn some new "view
> technology". I just don't want to impose this "bug fix" to people that
> have already invested time in learning and using JSP pages, with custom
> tag libraries developed etc (is Facelets backwards compatible with JSP?
> probably not).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Werner Punz
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:36 AM
> To: users@myfaces.apache.org
> Subject: Re: New to MyFaces
>
> Iordanov, Borislav (GIC) schrieb:
> > I'm not sure what "statistics" you are looking for. I haven't done an
> > industry analysis. But in general, JSF is heavyweight machinery
> without
> > any substantial benefit. Simple things are complicated and complicated
> > things impossible. It was obviously designed by (probably smart, Java
> > knowledgeable) people that have no serious experience with web
> > development. A well-known example is that it still doesn't work well
> > with JSP (a technology for which JSF was designed from the start!) and
> > it probably never will.
> >
> >
>
> JSF 1.2 does (myfaces soon will have jsf 1.2 level)
> and facelets basically do what jsp does. You basically
> speak about the mixin problems of html and jsf (verbatim tags)
>
> this problem is gone in the jsf 1.2 spec, and in facelets, facelets also
> eliminates problems introduced by jsp...
>
>