[ajug-members] Speaking of JSF... some comments...

Fri Sep 14 14:33:50 EDT 2007

> Modifying JSF components doesn't look like much fun either, and  
> every time in the past we've tried to use any off-the-shelf  
> components, they'd have to be tweaked.
>
That is exactly the situation I ran into when trying to use JSF off- 
the-shelf components. Usually the component doesn't meet the  
customers requirements. While it may be possible to tweak them (the  
component, that is, not the customer :) extending the component and  
muddling through the vendor's API (if they even have one, which, if  
they do, is probably minimally documented) is more trouble than it is  
worth.

I haven't used Wicket but I have heard good things about it ... for  
me personally, if I were to build a Java-based web application these  
days (which I am not -- I am currently doing RoR) I would seriously  
consider Grails or GWT.

I have to say that I JSF development when I was doing it. Okay, we  
were not using Facelets nor SEAM -- straight MyFaces imp -- but I  
found JSF to be painful. I personally found the lack of control of  
the emitted HTML to be problematic ... having to use f:verbatim  
everywhere was a pain ... but, more than that, it was just a lot of  
work anytime changes needed to be made. JSF seemed to make even the  
simplest of things difficult.

Bill Siggelkow

On Sep 14, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Rick Reumann wrote:

> If it was up to me and we had to choose a 'component based'  
> framework I'd go with Wicket. I still get a component based  
> architecture without all the JSF complexity or need to run on top  
> of anything else (ie JBoss Seam). Wicket's components are easily  
> extensible as well. No xml configuration files either.
>
> Modifying JSF components doesn't look like much fun either, and  
> every time in the past we've tried to use any off-the-shelf  
> components, they'd have to be tweaked.
>
> On 9/14/07, Burr Sutter <burrsutter at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is the story that I've heard as well.  Facelets makes JSF  
> very, very nice (even on the Sun RI).  Plus corrected some things  
> related to AJAX support.
> The biggest "win" for JSF is around components.  Think VBXs -  
> reusable components that can add value to your web-based UI with  
> minimal coding effort.
>
>  JBoss is/has open sourcing this kind of technology:
> http://livedemo.exadel.com/richfaces-demo/
>
> Now, I'm not personally sold on JSF either, however, it has  
> improved dramatically with the JSF 1.2 spec, the Sun RI (and  
> MyFaces), the open source available of components like Rich Faces  
> and Facelets  - https://facelets.dev.java.net/ (I've tried to get  
> Jacob Hookom to Atlanta before).
> Plus JBoss has open sourced Eclipse plugins for JSF and Facelets  
> editing/development:
> http://labs.jboss.org/tools
> http://labs.jboss.com/jbossrichfaces/
>
> Disclaimer: My paycheck comes from JBoss who happens to like JSF  
> and we have our best guy on that - Gavin King via his Seam  
> project.  Plus we have Stan Silvert as an Atlanta-based JSF  
> contributor for both Sun RI and MyFaces.  So this technology is  
> moving along in a good direction.
>
> At this point, you should take a 2 to 3 weeks and prototype using 2  
> or 3 different web frameworks.  David Geary on the No Fluff Just  
> Stuff tour often talks about his experiences with the various web  
> frameworks available in the market.
>
> Burr
>
>
> From: ajug-members-bounces at ajug.org [mailto:ajug-members- 
> bounces at ajug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Antonelli
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:19 AM
> To: General AJUG membership forum (100-200 messages/month)
> Subject: Re: [ajug-members] Speaking of JSF... some comments...
>
>
> JSF by itself, especially if you're just using the RI from Sun is  
> not that great. I was one of the early adopters and deployed  
> several applications using JSF for Bellsouth at my previous job and  
> there were times I wanted to just scream. However, with recent  
> developments and new implementations, like MyFaces from Apache, it  
> has gotten a lot better.. There are also ways to go "JSPless" like  
> Facelets.. I am at Autotrader.com now and we have two projects  
> utilizing JSF (using MyFaces and Facelets) and have had pretty good  
> luck using these technologies..
>
> --Brian
>
> On 9/14/07, Rick Reumann <rick.reumann at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From my brief time working with JSF, to be 'nice' I'll say I was  
> not pleased with it. Currently, at my new place of employment some  
> 'pointy heads' are considering using it for a project (for the sole  
> reason of it being a 'standard' - these 'pointy heads' haven't  
> coded in years). I'm working on a document voicing my objections,  
> but I would really appreciate some specific comments from those  
> that have worked with it, or have lead a team trying to use it, and  
> the frustrations you've run into trying to implement it. Yes, I  
> know there are posts I can google for as well, and I am using them  
> as well, but I'd still appreciate any comments from this community.  
> I'll be happy with any feedback (even positive feedback on the  
> framework) either on-list or off-list.
>
> Thanks so much.
>
> -- 
> Rick
> _______________________________________________
> ajug-members mailing list
> ajug-members at ajug.org
> http://www.ajug.org/mailman/listinfo/ajug-members
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ajug-members mailing list
> ajug-members at ajug.org
> http://www.ajug.org/mailman/listinfo/ajug-members
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Rick
> _______________________________________________
> ajug-members mailing list
> ajug-members at ajug.org
> http://www.ajug.org/mailman/listinfo/ajug-members

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ajug.org/pipermail/ajug-members/attachments/20070914/7efab131/attachment.html 