You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> on 2007/08/26 17:26:27 UTC
[THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
service web requests.
The benefits I see here are
1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more features to
2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
the web interface
3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
myfaces.apache.org
4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
enhancements (no steep learning curve)
5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
What do you think?
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
Another thought which I forgot was to probably give different options
in openejb standalone. For example, one could download openejb
standalone which has web admin.
Or one could also download openejb standalone which is bundled with
tomcat and has a web admin based on portlets+jsf+ajax . This would be
a bigger binary, but its going to be totally optional for the user.
Or we could simply ship webadmin separately which could be bundled
with tomcat as a separate download and make it pluggable into openejb,
i.e. it would possibly be a jar which the user needs to drop in the
lib directory of openejb standalone ... something like that. maybe we
could then add Mohammad's and Manu's ideas to web admin
I have not put too much thought behind the above, but thought maybe
these options might lead to some more ideas ;)
On 8/28/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here are some things which have been floating in my mind for a while.
>
> the HttpServer we already have is pretty cool too. We can add more
> stuff to it to add features proposed by Manu. I reviewed the
> HttpServer a bit today and it has support for both GET and POST
> request. I dont think we need support for any other request types. It
> also has session support (I think through stateful session beans)
>
> I am hoping that it should not be difficult to add an AJAX filter to
> it which processes AJAX requests.
>
> Secondly, in the HTTP Server itself, we could provide templates in
> text files (instead of jsp's) and use swizzle to parse those templates
> and spit out html .
>
> Also, it would be totally cool if we can write our own little action
> based MVC framework. We don't need a full featured framework, just a
> place where we can plugin our "actions" and get the next view etc.
>
>
>
> On 8/28/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Karan, what did u mean by the Apache Commons Http, did u mean Apache
> > Commons HttpClient, but it does not support building Http servers just
> > clients !!!
> >
> > On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> > > WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
> > >
> > > We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> > > service web requests.
> > >
> > > The benefits I see here are
> > > 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> > > features to
> > > 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> > > the web interface
> > > 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> > > myfaces.apache.org
> > > 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> > > enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> > > 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Karan Singh Malhi
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > - Mohammad Nour
> >
>
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
Here are some things which have been floating in my mind for a while.
the HttpServer we already have is pretty cool too. We can add more
stuff to it to add features proposed by Manu. I reviewed the
HttpServer a bit today and it has support for both GET and POST
request. I dont think we need support for any other request types. It
also has session support (I think through stateful session beans)
I am hoping that it should not be difficult to add an AJAX filter to
it which processes AJAX requests.
Secondly, in the HTTP Server itself, we could provide templates in
text files (instead of jsp's) and use swizzle to parse those templates
and spit out html .
Also, it would be totally cool if we can write our own little action
based MVC framework. We don't need a full featured framework, just a
place where we can plugin our "actions" and get the next view etc.
On 8/28/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Karan, what did u mean by the Apache Commons Http, did u mean Apache
> Commons HttpClient, but it does not support building Http servers just
> clients !!!
>
> On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> > WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
> >
> > We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> > service web requests.
> >
> > The benefits I see here are
> > 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> > features to
> > 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> > the web interface
> > 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> > myfaces.apache.org
> > 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> > enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> > 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > --
> > Karan Singh Malhi
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
Exactly what I was thinking. Was thinking of using Dojo. Pretty cool
stuff one can create with it.
On 8/28/07, Manu George <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi ,
> Why don't we do web-remoting. Since we dont have a
> servlet container we cannot go for servlet based approaches for web
> remoting (Current standard ones being DWR or JSONRPC-JAVA) . These two
> can make it possible for us to have javascript proxies of java objects
> at the client side. Since we have an httpserver we can probably do
> something similar to these frameworks and allow Ajax XHR calls direct
> to the ejbs.
> I have not yet investigated the webadmin :( .so i am not
> aware how it currently functions but it think it allows me to call
> ejbs via HTTP. We may be able to use some Ajax libraries like DOJO (or
> any other one) which provide standard widgets for a good look and feel
> at the client side.
> So the approach i am proposing is that we have HTML
> pages using the standard dojo widgets hosted on the http server and we
> directly make async calls to the ejbs via http. But again I am just
> shooting in the dark here.
>
> Regards
> Manu
>
> On 8/28/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Karan, what did u mean by the Apache Commons Http, did u mean Apache
> > Commons HttpClient, but it does not support building Http servers just
> > clients !!!
> >
> > On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> > > WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
> > >
> > > We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> > > service web requests.
> > >
> > > The benefits I see here are
> > > 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> > > features to
> > > 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> > > the web interface
> > > 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> > > myfaces.apache.org
> > > 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> > > enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> > > 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Karan Singh Malhi
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > - Mohammad Nour
> >
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Manu George <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi ,
Why don't we do web-remoting. Since we dont have a
servlet container we cannot go for servlet based approaches for web
remoting (Current standard ones being DWR or JSONRPC-JAVA) . These two
can make it possible for us to have javascript proxies of java objects
at the client side. Since we have an httpserver we can probably do
something similar to these frameworks and allow Ajax XHR calls direct
to the ejbs.
I have not yet investigated the webadmin :( .so i am not
aware how it currently functions but it think it allows me to call
ejbs via HTTP. We may be able to use some Ajax libraries like DOJO (or
any other one) which provide standard widgets for a good look and feel
at the client side.
So the approach i am proposing is that we have HTML
pages using the standard dojo widgets hosted on the http server and we
directly make async calls to the ejbs via http. But again I am just
shooting in the dark here.
Regards
Manu
On 8/28/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Karan, what did u mean by the Apache Commons Http, did u mean Apache
> Commons HttpClient, but it does not support building Http servers just
> clients !!!
>
> On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> > WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
> >
> > We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> > service web requests.
> >
> > The benefits I see here are
> > 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> > features to
> > 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> > the web interface
> > 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> > myfaces.apache.org
> > 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> > enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> > 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > --
> > Karan Singh Malhi
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
I can look into it and let you know .
On 8/30/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:21 PM, Karan Malhi wrote:
>
> > I meant the following http://jakarta.apache.org/httpcomponents/
> > index.html
> >
> > This has a module called HttpCore which gives us a lightweight http
> > server. I used it in one of the demos where I used Dojo, Scriptaculous
> > and created a prototype. Its pretty cool, very easy to embed.
>
> This seems pretty cool. I wonder if httpcore supports if-modified
> since, that's one thing our lightweight impl doesn't do, which
> effectively shuts of caching in the browser. Would be great to have
> that -- or copy it :)
>
> -David
>
>
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:21 PM, Karan Malhi wrote:
> I meant the following http://jakarta.apache.org/httpcomponents/
> index.html
>
> This has a module called HttpCore which gives us a lightweight http
> server. I used it in one of the demos where I used Dojo, Scriptaculous
> and created a prototype. Its pretty cool, very easy to embed.
This seems pretty cool. I wonder if httpcore supports if-modified
since, that's one thing our lightweight impl doesn't do, which
effectively shuts of caching in the browser. Would be great to have
that -- or copy it :)
-David
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
I meant the following http://jakarta.apache.org/httpcomponents/index.html
This has a module called HttpCore which gives us a lightweight http
server. I used it in one of the demos where I used Dojo, Scriptaculous
and created a prototype. Its pretty cool, very easy to embed.
On 8/28/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Karan, what did u mean by the Apache Commons Http, did u mean Apache
> Commons HttpClient, but it does not support building Http servers just
> clients !!!
>
> On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> > WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
> >
> > We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> > service web requests.
> >
> > The benefits I see here are
> > 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> > features to
> > 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> > the web interface
> > 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> > myfaces.apache.org
> > 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> > enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> > 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > --
> > Karan Singh Malhi
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi Karan, what did u mean by the Apache Commons Http, did u mean Apache
Commons HttpClient, but it does not support building Http servers just
clients !!!
On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
>
> We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> service web requests.
>
> The benefits I see here are
> 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> features to
> 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> the web interface
> 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> myfaces.apache.org
> 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Actually it is not my idea, I knew from the Geronimo project, so you have to
thank them not me :D .
On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Excellent , excellent , excellent idea. I wonder why i never thought
> about portlets
>
> On 8/26/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Karan...
> >
> > I like the idea but not JSF :), I think we can take benifit of what
> had
> > been done in Geronimo's AdminConsole, I think they use Portlets using
> Pluto,
> > JSF is wonderfull but the easiest way to go is what we already have in
> > Geronimo. Regarding AJAX, I really like this specially when we have the
> > cluster feature an admin would like to see all the content refreshes
> > dynamically without the burden of refreshing the whole content which
> will
> > slow down the whole process . And BTW when we use portlets we can use
> JSF
> > portlets :) so we still have the chance to use JSF :) .
> >
> > On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> > > WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
> > >
> > > We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> > > service web requests.
> > >
> > > The benefits I see here are
> > > 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> > > features to
> > > 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> > > the web interface
> > > 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> > > myfaces.apache.org
> > > 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> > > enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> > > 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Karan Singh Malhi
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > - Mohammad Nour
> >
>
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
Excellent , excellent , excellent idea. I wonder why i never thought
about portlets
On 8/26/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Karan...
>
> I like the idea but not JSF :), I think we can take benifit of what had
> been done in Geronimo's AdminConsole, I think they use Portlets using Pluto,
> JSF is wonderfull but the easiest way to go is what we already have in
> Geronimo. Regarding AJAX, I really like this specially when we have the
> cluster feature an admin would like to see all the content refreshes
> dynamically without the burden of refreshing the whole content which will
> slow down the whole process . And BTW when we use portlets we can use JSF
> portlets :) so we still have the chance to use JSF :) .
>
> On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> > WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
> >
> > We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> > service web requests.
> >
> > The benefits I see here are
> > 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> > features to
> > 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> > the web interface
> > 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> > myfaces.apache.org
> > 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> > enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> > 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > --
> > Karan Singh Malhi
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi Karan...
I like the idea but not JSF :), I think we can take benifit of what had
been done in Geronimo's AdminConsole, I think they use Portlets using Pluto,
JSF is wonderfull but the easiest way to go is what we already have in
Geronimo. Regarding AJAX, I really like this specially when we have the
cluster feature an admin would like to see all the content refreshes
dynamically without the burden of refreshing the whole content which will
slow down the whole process . And BTW when we use portlets we can use JSF
portlets :) so we still have the chance to use JSF :) .
On 8/26/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
>
> We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> service web requests.
>
> The benefits I see here are
> 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> features to
> 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> the web interface
> 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> myfaces.apache.org
> 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
> Gr8 so we are agree on what we need and how to do it, but who will do it ...
> :D just kidding, I like it and I want to join it.
What about the boss? Does he agree? ;)
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
On 8/30/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1- Do we have to use JSP or Portlets just because we wan to to use them,
> or
> > we just need to provide good looking dynamic WebAdmin for OpenEJB, we
> > started to think of the technology before we see what we really need
> Thats a good one ;) . I think of it is "there is already something
> available which can allow you to do a lot more and a lot faster ". So
> JSF gives me the ability to build GUI rapidly, which is what we need
> for WebAdming (GUI). Portlets give me layout and common look and feel
> capabilities and other stuff. Allows me to "drop in" functionality at
> the correct location without affecting anything else on the page.
> Something like "Oh, I wish I could configure xyz on the server through
> web admin, or I wish I could customize the way i look at log files
> through webadmin" could be created and plugged in independently by a
> developer.
> This also allows somebody who just wants to add functionality on
> their own instance of web admin in a standard way. For example, if i
> created a cool portlet for my web admin, I can easily plugin into
> webadmin without knowing anything about the current webadmin
> framework. Later I realize that my portlet could be useful for the
> community as a whole, I can simply submit the code to OpenEJB and we
> can drop it into web admin.
> >
> > 2- If we really need to use any of these technologies, we can search for
> > smaller Engines which provide the main functionality,
> I think, For JSP support we could use Jasper to compile jsp's
>
> > sure - of Jetty, and we can provide OpenEJB we Jetty only to serve the
> > WebAdmin, or we can do as Karan suggested before to have OpenEJB distro
> > already bundled with Tomcat and/or Jetty .
> Yes, ship the standalone version without webadmin and tomcat version
> would have webadmin. People can pick and choose the distro depending
> on what features they need
Gr8 so we are agree on what we need and how to do it, but who will do it ...
:D just kidding, I like it and I want to join it.
Manu did u start doing anything in this ???
>
> > On 8/30/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > > > Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
> > > > enginge, and tag libs support?
> > >
> > > I don't think so. JSF is layered atop JSP so although you might think
> > > of JSF with no servlet container (plus JSP) there's no JSF
> > > implementation I can think of that would run in a servlet container
> > > with no jsp engine. I'd like to hear I'm mistaken though. It'd be
> > > great to have a JSF console for openejb. I like the idea.
> > >
> > > Jacek
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jacek Laskowski
> > > http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > - Mohammad Nour
> >
>
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 30, 2007, at 4:57 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
>> sure - of Jetty, and we can provide OpenEJB we Jetty only to serve
>> the
>> WebAdmin, or we can do as Karan suggested before to have OpenEJB
>> distro
>> already bundled with Tomcat and/or Jetty .
> Yes, ship the standalone version without webadmin and tomcat version
> would have webadmin. People can pick and choose the distro depending
> on what features they need
I'd be game for providing a much better (maybe completely different)
webadmin with a tomcat integration, just as long as I can still keep
playing around with the little ejb-driven http stuff we have :)
Actually, in terms of tomcat, I wonder if there's a way to get
ourselves into their admin console? Then users would just have to
deal with one. Not sure that's even remotely possible though....
-David
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Raj,
This is great information!!
On 8/30/07, Raj Saini <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Jetty is the best choice as it is light weight, embeddable and
> very small foot print. ActiveMQ uses that for its web console.
>
> I do not feel bundling tomcat with OpenEJB will be right think to do.
> Admin Console should transparent from user. However, it would be nice to
> provide the standalone web application which users can deploy inside
> their application. For example, I embed ActiveMQ in one of my web
> application. Earlier I was forced to use the embedded Jetty (i.e.
> running a servlet (Jetty) container inside another contain (Tomcat).
> Standalone web application should be deployable in any servlet container.
>
> Having web admin application as portelts is good idea but it would need
> portal container. Pluto should be the choice (portals.apache.org) as it
> is reference implementation of JSR-168 and comes with minimal baggage.
>
> And I feel JMX is the standard to manage OpenEJB server and deployed
> components.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Raj
>
> Karan Malhi wrote:
> >> 1- Do we have to use JSP or Portlets just because we wan to to use them, or
> >> we just need to provide good looking dynamic WebAdmin for OpenEJB, we
> >> started to think of the technology before we see what we really need
> >>
> > Thats a good one ;) . I think of it is "there is already something
> > available which can allow you to do a lot more and a lot faster ". So
> > JSF gives me the ability to build GUI rapidly, which is what we need
> > for WebAdming (GUI). Portlets give me layout and common look and feel
> > capabilities and other stuff. Allows me to "drop in" functionality at
> > the correct location without affecting anything else on the page.
> > Something like "Oh, I wish I could configure xyz on the server through
> > web admin, or I wish I could customize the way i look at log files
> > through webadmin" could be created and plugged in independently by a
> > developer.
> > This also allows somebody who just wants to add functionality on
> > their own instance of web admin in a standard way. For example, if i
> > created a cool portlet for my web admin, I can easily plugin into
> > webadmin without knowing anything about the current webadmin
> > framework. Later I realize that my portlet could be useful for the
> > community as a whole, I can simply submit the code to OpenEJB and we
> > can drop it into web admin.
> >
> >> 2- If we really need to use any of these technologies, we can search for
> >> smaller Engines which provide the main functionality,
> >>
> > I think, For JSP support we could use Jasper to compile jsp's
> >
> >
> >> sure - of Jetty, and we can provide OpenEJB we Jetty only to serve the
> >> WebAdmin, or we can do as Karan suggested before to have OpenEJB distro
> >> already bundled with Tomcat and/or Jetty .
> >>
> > Yes, ship the standalone version without webadmin and tomcat version
> > would have webadmin. People can pick and choose the distro depending
> > on what features they need
> >
> >> On 8/30/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
> >>>> enginge, and tag libs support?
> >>>>
> >>> I don't think so. JSF is layered atop JSP so although you might think
> >>> of JSF with no servlet container (plus JSP) there's no JSF
> >>> implementation I can think of that would run in a servlet container
> >>> with no jsp engine. I'd like to hear I'm mistaken though. It'd be
> >>> great to have a JSF console for openejb. I like the idea.
> >>>
> >>> Jacek
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jacek Laskowski
> >>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks
> >> - Mohammad Nour
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 30, 2007, at 5:13 AM, Raj Saini wrote:
> However, it would be nice to provide the standalone web application
> which users can deploy inside their application. For example, I
> embed ActiveMQ in one of my web application. Earlier I was forced
> to use the embedded Jetty (i.e. running a servlet (Jetty) container
> inside another contain (Tomcat). Standalone web application should
> be deployable in any servlet container.
The HttpRequest and HttpResponse interfaces we have in use so far
have jetty and servlet (tomcat) implementations in Geronimo -- I
copied the interfaces over to do the webservices support which is
also http bound. So if we wanted we could use things written against
them in our little web server, jetty or tomcat.
Course none of the MVC frameworks out there user our little
interfaces, so it might not be where we want to go for GUI stuff.
-David
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
I think what u r talking about is the Pluto Portal Driver, remember that
Pluto is only a portlet container not a portal server.
Here is what I think, we have our WebAdmin developed usign Portlets/JSP/AJAX
- any mix of them - and we can provide different alternatives to users:
1- Have the WebAdmin alone and they install it on any WebContainer which
supports these technologies, and we can provide documentational instructions
on how to use and setup this WebAdmin on a number of different WebContainers
.
2- Have OpenEJB bundled with Tomcat/Jetty - and we are going to use them in
the embedded mode only, I don't think we should bundle the whole Tomcat/Jett
WebContainers with OpenEJB .
On 8/30/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does pluto work with Jetty (Technically it should work with any
> servlet container), but I remember using pluto a year and a half ago
> and I saw somewhere that it only worked with tomcat (or maybe a
> certain feature worked with only tomcat).
>
> Do you know of any project which has successfully used Jetty + Pluto.
> What is the servlet container container for Geronimo?
>
>
> On 8/30/07, Raj Saini <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think Jetty is the best choice as it is light weight, embeddable and
> > very small foot print. ActiveMQ uses that for its web console.
> >
> > I do not feel bundling tomcat with OpenEJB will be right think to do.
> > Admin Console should transparent from user. However, it would be nice to
> > provide the standalone web application which users can deploy inside
> > their application. For example, I embed ActiveMQ in one of my web
> > application. Earlier I was forced to use the embedded Jetty (i.e.
> > running a servlet (Jetty) container inside another contain (Tomcat).
> > Standalone web application should be deployable in any servlet
> container.
> >
> > Having web admin application as portelts is good idea but it would need
> > portal container. Pluto should be the choice (portals.apache.org) as it
> > is reference implementation of JSR-168 and comes with minimal baggage.
> >
> > And I feel JMX is the standard to manage OpenEJB server and deployed
> > components.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Raj
> >
> > Karan Malhi wrote:
> > >> 1- Do we have to use JSP or Portlets just because we wan to to use
> them, or
> > >> we just need to provide good looking dynamic WebAdmin for OpenEJB, we
> > >> started to think of the technology before we see what we really need
> > >>
> > > Thats a good one ;) . I think of it is "there is already something
> > > available which can allow you to do a lot more and a lot faster ". So
> > > JSF gives me the ability to build GUI rapidly, which is what we need
> > > for WebAdming (GUI). Portlets give me layout and common look and feel
> > > capabilities and other stuff. Allows me to "drop in" functionality at
> > > the correct location without affecting anything else on the page.
> > > Something like "Oh, I wish I could configure xyz on the server through
> > > web admin, or I wish I could customize the way i look at log files
> > > through webadmin" could be created and plugged in independently by a
> > > developer.
> > > This also allows somebody who just wants to add functionality on
> > > their own instance of web admin in a standard way. For example, if i
> > > created a cool portlet for my web admin, I can easily plugin into
> > > webadmin without knowing anything about the current webadmin
> > > framework. Later I realize that my portlet could be useful for the
> > > community as a whole, I can simply submit the code to OpenEJB and we
> > > can drop it into web admin.
> > >
> > >> 2- If we really need to use any of these technologies, we can search
> for
> > >> smaller Engines which provide the main functionality,
> > >>
> > > I think, For JSP support we could use Jasper to compile jsp's
> > >
> > >
> > >> sure - of Jetty, and we can provide OpenEJB we Jetty only to serve
> the
> > >> WebAdmin, or we can do as Karan suggested before to have OpenEJB
> distro
> > >> already bundled with Tomcat and/or Jetty .
> > >>
> > > Yes, ship the standalone version without webadmin and tomcat version
> > > would have webadmin. People can pick and choose the distro depending
> > > on what features they need
> > >
> > >> On 8/30/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 8/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
> > >>>> enginge, and tag libs support?
> > >>>>
> > >>> I don't think so. JSF is layered atop JSP so although you might
> think
> > >>> of JSF with no servlet container (plus JSP) there's no JSF
> > >>> implementation I can think of that would run in a servlet container
> > >>> with no jsp engine. I'd like to hear I'm mistaken though. It'd be
> > >>> great to have a JSF console for openejb. I like the idea.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jacek
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Jacek Laskowski
> > >>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Thanks
> > >> - Mohammad Nour
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Raj Saini <ra...@gmail.com>.
AFAIK, Pluto release contains bundled Tomcat Server. However, it should
not be difficult to deploy them in any other servlet container.
Geronimo supports both Jetty and Tomcat container though I did not check
it recently.
Raj
Karan Malhi wrote:
> Does pluto work with Jetty (Technically it should work with any
> servlet container), but I remember using pluto a year and a half ago
> and I saw somewhere that it only worked with tomcat (or maybe a
> certain feature worked with only tomcat).
>
> Do you know of any project which has successfully used Jetty + Pluto.
> What is the servlet container container for Geronimo?
>
>
> On 8/30/07, Raj Saini <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think Jetty is the best choice as it is light weight, embeddable and
>> very small foot print. ActiveMQ uses that for its web console.
>>
>> I do not feel bundling tomcat with OpenEJB will be right think to do.
>> Admin Console should transparent from user. However, it would be nice to
>> provide the standalone web application which users can deploy inside
>> their application. For example, I embed ActiveMQ in one of my web
>> application. Earlier I was forced to use the embedded Jetty (i.e.
>> running a servlet (Jetty) container inside another contain (Tomcat).
>> Standalone web application should be deployable in any servlet container.
>>
>> Having web admin application as portelts is good idea but it would need
>> portal container. Pluto should be the choice (portals.apache.org) as it
>> is reference implementation of JSR-168 and comes with minimal baggage.
>>
>> And I feel JMX is the standard to manage OpenEJB server and deployed
>> components.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Raj
>>
>> Karan Malhi wrote:
>>
>>>> 1- Do we have to use JSP or Portlets just because we wan to to use them, or
>>>> we just need to provide good looking dynamic WebAdmin for OpenEJB, we
>>>> started to think of the technology before we see what we really need
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thats a good one ;) . I think of it is "there is already something
>>> available which can allow you to do a lot more and a lot faster ". So
>>> JSF gives me the ability to build GUI rapidly, which is what we need
>>> for WebAdming (GUI). Portlets give me layout and common look and feel
>>> capabilities and other stuff. Allows me to "drop in" functionality at
>>> the correct location without affecting anything else on the page.
>>> Something like "Oh, I wish I could configure xyz on the server through
>>> web admin, or I wish I could customize the way i look at log files
>>> through webadmin" could be created and plugged in independently by a
>>> developer.
>>> This also allows somebody who just wants to add functionality on
>>> their own instance of web admin in a standard way. For example, if i
>>> created a cool portlet for my web admin, I can easily plugin into
>>> webadmin without knowing anything about the current webadmin
>>> framework. Later I realize that my portlet could be useful for the
>>> community as a whole, I can simply submit the code to OpenEJB and we
>>> can drop it into web admin.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2- If we really need to use any of these technologies, we can search for
>>>> smaller Engines which provide the main functionality,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think, For JSP support we could use Jasper to compile jsp's
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> sure - of Jetty, and we can provide OpenEJB we Jetty only to serve the
>>>> WebAdmin, or we can do as Karan suggested before to have OpenEJB distro
>>>> already bundled with Tomcat and/or Jetty .
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, ship the standalone version without webadmin and tomcat version
>>> would have webadmin. People can pick and choose the distro depending
>>> on what features they need
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 8/30/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
>>>>>> enginge, and tag libs support?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so. JSF is layered atop JSP so although you might think
>>>>> of JSF with no servlet container (plus JSP) there's no JSF
>>>>> implementation I can think of that would run in a servlet container
>>>>> with no jsp engine. I'd like to hear I'm mistaken though. It'd be
>>>>> great to have a JSF console for openejb. I like the idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacek
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jacek Laskowski
>>>>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks
>>>> - Mohammad Nour
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
Does pluto work with Jetty (Technically it should work with any
servlet container), but I remember using pluto a year and a half ago
and I saw somewhere that it only worked with tomcat (or maybe a
certain feature worked with only tomcat).
Do you know of any project which has successfully used Jetty + Pluto.
What is the servlet container container for Geronimo?
On 8/30/07, Raj Saini <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Jetty is the best choice as it is light weight, embeddable and
> very small foot print. ActiveMQ uses that for its web console.
>
> I do not feel bundling tomcat with OpenEJB will be right think to do.
> Admin Console should transparent from user. However, it would be nice to
> provide the standalone web application which users can deploy inside
> their application. For example, I embed ActiveMQ in one of my web
> application. Earlier I was forced to use the embedded Jetty (i.e.
> running a servlet (Jetty) container inside another contain (Tomcat).
> Standalone web application should be deployable in any servlet container.
>
> Having web admin application as portelts is good idea but it would need
> portal container. Pluto should be the choice (portals.apache.org) as it
> is reference implementation of JSR-168 and comes with minimal baggage.
>
> And I feel JMX is the standard to manage OpenEJB server and deployed
> components.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Raj
>
> Karan Malhi wrote:
> >> 1- Do we have to use JSP or Portlets just because we wan to to use them, or
> >> we just need to provide good looking dynamic WebAdmin for OpenEJB, we
> >> started to think of the technology before we see what we really need
> >>
> > Thats a good one ;) . I think of it is "there is already something
> > available which can allow you to do a lot more and a lot faster ". So
> > JSF gives me the ability to build GUI rapidly, which is what we need
> > for WebAdming (GUI). Portlets give me layout and common look and feel
> > capabilities and other stuff. Allows me to "drop in" functionality at
> > the correct location without affecting anything else on the page.
> > Something like "Oh, I wish I could configure xyz on the server through
> > web admin, or I wish I could customize the way i look at log files
> > through webadmin" could be created and plugged in independently by a
> > developer.
> > This also allows somebody who just wants to add functionality on
> > their own instance of web admin in a standard way. For example, if i
> > created a cool portlet for my web admin, I can easily plugin into
> > webadmin without knowing anything about the current webadmin
> > framework. Later I realize that my portlet could be useful for the
> > community as a whole, I can simply submit the code to OpenEJB and we
> > can drop it into web admin.
> >
> >> 2- If we really need to use any of these technologies, we can search for
> >> smaller Engines which provide the main functionality,
> >>
> > I think, For JSP support we could use Jasper to compile jsp's
> >
> >
> >> sure - of Jetty, and we can provide OpenEJB we Jetty only to serve the
> >> WebAdmin, or we can do as Karan suggested before to have OpenEJB distro
> >> already bundled with Tomcat and/or Jetty .
> >>
> > Yes, ship the standalone version without webadmin and tomcat version
> > would have webadmin. People can pick and choose the distro depending
> > on what features they need
> >
> >> On 8/30/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
> >>>> enginge, and tag libs support?
> >>>>
> >>> I don't think so. JSF is layered atop JSP so although you might think
> >>> of JSF with no servlet container (plus JSP) there's no JSF
> >>> implementation I can think of that would run in a servlet container
> >>> with no jsp engine. I'd like to hear I'm mistaken though. It'd be
> >>> great to have a JSF console for openejb. I like the idea.
> >>>
> >>> Jacek
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jacek Laskowski
> >>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks
> >> - Mohammad Nour
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Raj Saini <ra...@gmail.com>.
I think Jetty is the best choice as it is light weight, embeddable and
very small foot print. ActiveMQ uses that for its web console.
I do not feel bundling tomcat with OpenEJB will be right think to do.
Admin Console should transparent from user. However, it would be nice to
provide the standalone web application which users can deploy inside
their application. For example, I embed ActiveMQ in one of my web
application. Earlier I was forced to use the embedded Jetty (i.e.
running a servlet (Jetty) container inside another contain (Tomcat).
Standalone web application should be deployable in any servlet container.
Having web admin application as portelts is good idea but it would need
portal container. Pluto should be the choice (portals.apache.org) as it
is reference implementation of JSR-168 and comes with minimal baggage.
And I feel JMX is the standard to manage OpenEJB server and deployed
components.
Thanks,
Raj
Karan Malhi wrote:
>> 1- Do we have to use JSP or Portlets just because we wan to to use them, or
>> we just need to provide good looking dynamic WebAdmin for OpenEJB, we
>> started to think of the technology before we see what we really need
>>
> Thats a good one ;) . I think of it is "there is already something
> available which can allow you to do a lot more and a lot faster ". So
> JSF gives me the ability to build GUI rapidly, which is what we need
> for WebAdming (GUI). Portlets give me layout and common look and feel
> capabilities and other stuff. Allows me to "drop in" functionality at
> the correct location without affecting anything else on the page.
> Something like "Oh, I wish I could configure xyz on the server through
> web admin, or I wish I could customize the way i look at log files
> through webadmin" could be created and plugged in independently by a
> developer.
> This also allows somebody who just wants to add functionality on
> their own instance of web admin in a standard way. For example, if i
> created a cool portlet for my web admin, I can easily plugin into
> webadmin without knowing anything about the current webadmin
> framework. Later I realize that my portlet could be useful for the
> community as a whole, I can simply submit the code to OpenEJB and we
> can drop it into web admin.
>
>> 2- If we really need to use any of these technologies, we can search for
>> smaller Engines which provide the main functionality,
>>
> I think, For JSP support we could use Jasper to compile jsp's
>
>
>> sure - of Jetty, and we can provide OpenEJB we Jetty only to serve the
>> WebAdmin, or we can do as Karan suggested before to have OpenEJB distro
>> already bundled with Tomcat and/or Jetty .
>>
> Yes, ship the standalone version without webadmin and tomcat version
> would have webadmin. People can pick and choose the distro depending
> on what features they need
>
>> On 8/30/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
>>>> enginge, and tag libs support?
>>>>
>>> I don't think so. JSF is layered atop JSP so although you might think
>>> of JSF with no servlet container (plus JSP) there's no JSF
>>> implementation I can think of that would run in a servlet container
>>> with no jsp engine. I'd like to hear I'm mistaken though. It'd be
>>> great to have a JSF console for openejb. I like the idea.
>>>
>>> Jacek
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacek Laskowski
>>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks
>> - Mohammad Nour
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
> 1- Do we have to use JSP or Portlets just because we wan to to use them, or
> we just need to provide good looking dynamic WebAdmin for OpenEJB, we
> started to think of the technology before we see what we really need
Thats a good one ;) . I think of it is "there is already something
available which can allow you to do a lot more and a lot faster ". So
JSF gives me the ability to build GUI rapidly, which is what we need
for WebAdming (GUI). Portlets give me layout and common look and feel
capabilities and other stuff. Allows me to "drop in" functionality at
the correct location without affecting anything else on the page.
Something like "Oh, I wish I could configure xyz on the server through
web admin, or I wish I could customize the way i look at log files
through webadmin" could be created and plugged in independently by a
developer.
This also allows somebody who just wants to add functionality on
their own instance of web admin in a standard way. For example, if i
created a cool portlet for my web admin, I can easily plugin into
webadmin without knowing anything about the current webadmin
framework. Later I realize that my portlet could be useful for the
community as a whole, I can simply submit the code to OpenEJB and we
can drop it into web admin.
>
> 2- If we really need to use any of these technologies, we can search for
> smaller Engines which provide the main functionality,
I think, For JSP support we could use Jasper to compile jsp's
> sure - of Jetty, and we can provide OpenEJB we Jetty only to serve the
> WebAdmin, or we can do as Karan suggested before to have OpenEJB distro
> already bundled with Tomcat and/or Jetty .
Yes, ship the standalone version without webadmin and tomcat version
would have webadmin. People can pick and choose the distro depending
on what features they need
>
> On 8/30/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > > Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
> > > enginge, and tag libs support?
> >
> > I don't think so. JSF is layered atop JSP so although you might think
> > of JSF with no servlet container (plus JSP) there's no JSF
> > implementation I can think of that would run in a servlet container
> > with no jsp engine. I'd like to hear I'm mistaken though. It'd be
> > great to have a JSF console for openejb. I like the idea.
> >
> > Jacek
> >
> > --
> > Jacek Laskowski
> > http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Well from this whole discussion, I came out with two main questions:
1- Do we have to use JSP or Portlets just because we wan to to use them, or
we just need to provide good looking dynamic WebAdmin for OpenEJB, we
started to think of the technology before we see what we really need, for
example Paulo suggested another technology which does not need any
Servlet/JSP/Portlet engine .
2- If we really need to use any of these technologies, we can search for
smaller Engines which provide the main functionality, I think - but I am not
sure - of Jetty, and we can provide OpenEJB we Jetty only to serve the
WebAdmin, or we can do as Karan suggested before to have OpenEJB distro
already bundled with Tomcat and/or Jetty .
On 8/30/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>
> On 8/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
> > enginge, and tag libs support?
>
> I don't think so. JSF is layered atop JSP so although you might think
> of JSF with no servlet container (plus JSP) there's no JSF
> implementation I can think of that would run in a servlet container
> with no jsp engine. I'd like to hear I'm mistaken though. It'd be
> great to have a JSF console for openejb. I like the idea.
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 8/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
> enginge, and tag libs support?
I don't think so. JSF is layered atop JSP so although you might think
of JSF with no servlet container (plus JSP) there's no JSF
implementation I can think of that would run in a servlet container
with no jsp engine. I'd like to hear I'm mistaken though. It'd be
great to have a JSF console for openejb. I like the idea.
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Paulo Lopes <pm...@scratchydreams.com>.
Hi,
If you're looking for a simple AJAX library and optionally some MVC
"framework" that will run without a Servlet container I might suggest
a project I started one year ago (https://rajax.dev.java.net). There
is an article on java.net about its usage:
http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2007/06/21/almost-cpu-free-mvc-pattern-with-rajax.html
If you use it, it can be easily extended with a dispatcher
implementation for the http server that is already on the openejb
server and run without any extra servlet/etc... containers.
Cheers,
Paulo
On 8/28/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
> > enginge, and tag libs support?
>
> You are right. I don't think we can do that without a jsp engine. As
> usual, I just got too excited when I posted my thoughts ;)
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
>
--
Paulo Lopes
www.scratchydreams.com
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
> Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
> enginge, and tag libs support?
You are right. I don't think we can do that without a jsp engine. As
usual, I just got too excited when I posted my thoughts ;)
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: [THOUGHT] WebAdmin with JSF + AJAX
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 26, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
> I have been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to port
> WebAdmin to a more commonly known MVC framework like JSF?
>
> We could embed an HttpServer using apache commons Http which could
> service web requests.
>
> The benefits I see here are
> 1. Standard framework which becomes easier to maintain and add more
> features to
> 2. Standard out of the box GUI components which could be dropped into
> the web interface
> 3. Availability of more powerful and complex GUI components , e.g.
> myfaces.apache.org
> 4. Easier/Faster for other contributors to jump in and provide
> enhancements (no steep learning curve)
> 5. Can be AJAX'ed easily through libraries like ajax4jsf etc.
>
> What do you think?
Is it possible to support JSF without a full servlet container, jsp
enginge, and tag libs support?
We have an small httpserver already and we could do some ajax stuff.
Not too ajax-savvy myself, but it sounds neat.
-David