You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@myfaces.apache.org by my...@abilsoft.com on 2008/02/28 15:05:51 UTC
Trinidad vs Tomahawk/Sandbox/RichFaces
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!
Re: Trinidad vs Tomahawk/Sandbox/RichFaces
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
> 1) Do you know if the <tr:table> (or something else in
> Trinidad) has the resizable column capability as in
> <rich:scrollableDataTable>? This is a key requirement for our
> app.
I'm pretty sure it does not. Try the demo and see. The Oracle rich
client does and is planned to be released to open source, but I don't
know the specifics of when this may happen and how much of the
functionality will be included (it is based on Trinidad).
> 2) Also, as you noted, the first impression of the components
> from the demo is that they are 'ugly'. Are there any head
> starts out there to address this rather than startiung from
> scratch?
I started from scratch on my own project. Basically I use the Trinidad
simple skin as a base and am skinning the components as I integrate
them into my app.
> 3) Is it completely incompatible with A4J/RichFaces or could a
> combination be workable?
Combinations are messy. Mostly I think people that have done it have
turned off / not used the Trinidad PPR and let A4J handle the AJAX.
The problems are (1) A4J hacks the JSF lifecycle and has caused
problems with Trinidad component rendering, at least in the past and
(2) I don't think you can use any Trinidad components that use PPR
built in (like showDetail, panelTabbed, tree, treeTable). Some one
that has tried integrating them would be better to ask.
Re: Trinidad vs Tomahawk/Sandbox/RichFaces
Posted by Walter Mourão <wa...@gmail.com>.
I worked on a RichFaces project recently and I think Trinidad has more
"relevant" components. The community is far more responsive.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Andrew Robinson <
andrew.rw.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
Agreed.
Cheers,
--
Walter Mourão
http://waltermourao.com.br
http://waltermourao.blogspot.com
http://arcadian.com.br
Re: Trinidad vs Tomahawk/Sandbox/RichFaces
Posted by my...@abilsoft.com.
Andrew,
Thanks so much for the helpful reply!
Several follow on questions:
1) Do you know if the <tr:table> (or something else in
Trinidad) has the resizable column capability as in
<rich:scrollableDataTable>? This is a key requirement for our
app.
2) Also, as you noted, the first impression of the components
from the demo is that they are 'ugly'. Are there any head
starts out there to address this rather than startiung from
scratch?
3) Is it completely incompatible with A4J/RichFaces or could a
combination be workable?
Thanks again!
---------Original Message---------
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, <my...@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!
>
Re: Trinidad vs Tomahawk/Sandbox/RichFaces
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
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, <my...@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!
>