myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott O'Bryan" <>
Subject Re: Doubt about ADF Faces & Trinidad
Date Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:17:20 GMT
How do you know the next drop "won't" be dubbed Trinidad 2.0?  It's 
certainly built off the Trinidad framework and the tag libraries are 
virtually identical.


Stephen Friedrich wrote:
> Mark Millman wrote:
>> The quality of Trinidad it a testament to how Open Source communities 
>> work best.
> Well, ...
> I don't really agree, but maybe I am not involved deeply enough in the 
> community to judge.
> Without wanting to offend anyone personally - it seems to me that
> * it took forever to negotiate the legals of the first adf faces drop, 
> then it took another
>   eternity until Trinidad 1.0 and again it took a series of minor 
> releases until Trinidad was
>   mostly stable
> * Oracle employees still do most of the work
> * many people enjoy working on experimental stuff or whatever else 
> they like, all while
>   bugs that affect basic functionality pile up in Jira
> * documentation is, hm, let's say minimal. There isn't even some kind 
> of visual index to the
>   components. No small usage example at each component's tag docs.
>   That is even a step backwards from ADF Faces.
> * Now instead of working on Trinidad 2.0 Oracle decides to do yet 
> another component library.
>   Discussions about the initial drop are undergoing, so we might see a 
> 1.0 release in 2010.
>   By then it will be largely incompatible to the initial drop with all 
> the subtle difference
>   being poorly documented.
> I like JSF in principle, but it is still lacking a professional, 
> complete, standard compliant
> and compatible components set.
> Sorry if I sound harsh, but I recently spent so much time debugging 
> and trying to beat
> skinning into form, work around incompatibilities between Trinidad and 
> Seam, etc.
> I ended up writing a couple of custom components for the core 
> functionality.
> All in all the effort would have been smaller if I just went with JSP 
> from the start.

View raw message