myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew Robinson" <andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Trinidad vs Tomahawk/Sandbox/RichFaces
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:32:10 GMT
Tomahawk - more of a random collection of components without a
consistent API layer. Tomahawk has not had a release in a very long
time and has not had any new development in ages.

Tomahawk Sandbox - a really unstructured development environment.
There are no plugins or help to the authors to write components, JSP
tag files or support facelets. This is much more active that Tomahawk.
It is a hodge-podge of components though, some based on Dojo, some
with their own custom Ajax framework, others definitely in more of an
unstable state. The AJAX components are not made to work with other
PPR libraries (Trinidad, IceFaces, A4J)

RichFaces - Requires A4J so makes it mostly incompatible with Trinidad
and IceFaces. It has a small component library and is very inflexible
the last time I used it (breaks badly when you have non-normal use
cases). RichFaces hacks the JSF lifecycle to do what they want, so may
break 3rd party libraries that expect the standard lifecycle. It has
custom skinning, but I never used it to compare it to others.

Trinidad - The most components out there and supports PPR/AJAX as well
as a skinning framework. It has a very nice maven plugin for custom
component development to enhance Trinidad. The documentation is very
poor when you try to enhance it though, there is a lot of architecture
and framework that is robust an completely undocumented. The default
skinning is darned ugly, so you will need to write you own CSS files
to make their components look half way decent, where RichFaces is nice
out of the box.

IceFaces - really awesome architecture and LnF, but is the most
non-standard so has problems working with others, you pretty much have
to write your own renderers for 3rd party components. Other than that
I have never used it.

I personally chose Trinidad because of (1) the Apache 2 license is
better than LGPL of JBoss, (2) the community is much more responsive
that JBoss (took forever for RichFaces to fix reported bugs), (3) has
a much larger component set than others and (4) is JSF spec friendly
so "plays nicer" than others.

I use:
Trinidad 1.2.7-SNAPSHOT
Tomahawk 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT (for a few components, but may stop using
altogether shortly)
Tomahawk-sandbox 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT (for a few components, but may stop
using altogether shortly)
Facelets 1.1.14
JBoss Seam 2.0.1GA

I don't have any major problems with Seam and Trinidad. They just
fixed 2.0.2 for me for <s:convesationPropagation> and Trinidad, so
they are willing to help. Be aware that although Seam is an absolutely
awesome tool with no comparable alternative IMO, they *love* to break
backwards compatibility between releases, even minor ones. They almost
never deprecate their APIs, they simply disappear. I can't wait for
JSF 2.0 and WebBeans so that some of the code becomes standard and
have the API set in stone.

My $0.02

-Andrew

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:05 AM,  <myfaces@abilsoft.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>  I've been noticing a lot of traffic related to Trinidad and
>  wondered if people could offer their insights and experience on
>  the following:
>
>  How do the Trinidad components compare to Tomahawk, Tomahawk
>  Sandbox and/or RichFaces?  (The later three are part of my
>  typical technology stack, where I have no experience yet with
>  Trinidad).
>
>  What are the advantages/disadvantages?  Are the components
>  themeselves more compelling/useful from a user experience
>  perspective?  How well does it integrate with the above and
>  Seam?
>
>  TIA!
>

Mime
View raw message