facelets vs. jsp

[Burghard Britzke <bu...@charmides.in-berlin.de>]

in conjunction with myfaces or jsf for general: should I use facelets  
or jsp if I would have the choice?

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>]

Zied Hamdi schrieb:

>  
> Surely since it's based on the servlet API, but I think the servlet API
> is abtract enough to be exended to any user machine interaction. When I
> was just reading without applying JSF, I was thinking JSF events are
> processed at the moment they occur, which a completely possible
> alternative through Ajax, When java come in, everybody was saying : it's
> too slow, and I fan of java, was answering: you said C++ is too slow
> (compared to C) but machines come faster and the user experience stopped
> to be handicaped. I think the same phenomena is coming with internet
> connection speed and the client-server applications: every application
> will be client server based in the future, the need is clearely there...
> being the first to believe in that "write once deploy everywhere" can be
> extended to these limits can have some advantages on our next ten years
> salaries ;-).
>  
> 
>  
The main problem with ajax is less its speed, that will be resolved over
time as you say, the entire concept is broken by design and could be
fixed or killed but wont be on a browser independent level.

Several problems are with ajaxs approach:

a) You have a huge document singleton which is the dom tree, this is an
antipattern in itself because everything can influence everything, there
is no isolation on subdom level which would isolate components in their
designs from each other. (We currently have XUL and something IEonly
which resolves that issue)

b) You have ajax in combination with javascript, ajax is a cludge and
quick hack, a typical microsoft solution. The underlying javascript has
no mechanisms for concurrency no threading nothing, and ajax adds pseudo
parallelism (which is not really parallelism in itself)
The ajax communication layer is pure http with all its limitations, but
that is not really the problem. The problem is the complete package.
Add to that that JavaScript at least in the version implemented by the
browsers is seriously broken, due to the lack of namespaces and a decent
class/inheritance mechanism (altering the vtables-prototype arrays to
achieve it is not everybodies taste) and you get a mix out of hell.

Speed issues are really the last issues to think of if you target ajax,
there are other issues which makes dhtml a living nightmare in itself.
Speed will resolve itself over time, the other issues wont, because it
is not in the business interest of a huge big player to fix this mess in
a platform neutral way.

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Zied Hamdi <ja...@gmail.com>]

Werner Punz wrote:
>Mostly for now JSF is a mechanism for server side user interfaces, so
it spans naturally into server side rendered uis easiest

Surely since it's based on the servlet API, but I think the servlet API is
abtract enough to be exended to any user machine interaction. When I was
just reading without applying JSF, I was thinking JSF events are processed
at the moment they occur, which a completely possible alternative through
Ajax, When java come in, everybody was saying : it's too slow, and I fan of
java, was answering: you said C++ is too slow (compared to C) but machines
come faster and the user experience stopped to be handicaped. I think the
same phenomena is coming with internet connection speed and the
client-server applications: every application will be client server based in
the future, the need is clearely there... being the first to believe in that
"write once deploy everywhere" can be extended to these limits can have some
advantages on our next ten years salaries ;-).



2007/7/24, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>:
>
> Zied Hamdi schrieb:
>
> > At the beginng of the JSF specification (2002 I think) I thought JSF
> > will replace all platforms: I though it will be compiled to swing, JSPs,
> > SVG and all we will have to do is write a sort of XML that will be
> > transformed to these formats, then we will have bundles of css and other
>
> Well JSF has enough abstraction to acomplish that task (to some degree
> for now),
> but so do many other frameworks,
> it all comes down to the task to write the proper renderers.
>
> Since most development currently is done in the html domain
> most components are developed for html only. You can see
> the power of the higher abstraction in component implementations
> for WML, or Renderers for PDF some people have written
> or even the neat VT220/Jabber demo the Oracle guys love to show
> at conferences.
>
> Mostly for now JSF is a mechanism for server side user interfaces, so
> it spans naturally into server side rendered uis easiest (Which
> is html, VT220, Instant messaging etc...)
> Client side rendering is doable, but every connector into real client
> side uis has to provide a lot of infrastructure and server callback paths.
>
> JSF 2.0 will adress many of those issues, I hope they can pull it off
> decently.
>
>


-- 
Zied Hamdi
zatreex.sourceforge.net

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>]

Zied Hamdi schrieb:

> At the beginng of the JSF specification (2002 I think) I thought JSF
> will replace all platforms: I though it will be compiled to swing, JSPs,
> SVG and all we will have to do is write a sort of XML that will be
> transformed to these formats, then we will have bundles of css and other

Well JSF has enough abstraction to acomplish that task (to some degree
for now),
but so do many other frameworks,
it all comes down to the task to write the proper renderers.

Since most development currently is done in the html domain
most components are developed for html only. You can see
the power of the higher abstraction in component implementations
for WML, or Renderers for PDF some people have written
or even the neat VT220/Jabber demo the Oracle guys love to show
at conferences.

Mostly for now JSF is a mechanism for server side user interfaces, so
it spans naturally into server side rendered uis easiest (Which
is html, VT220, Instant messaging etc...)
Client side rendering is doable, but every connector into real client
side uis has to provide a lot of infrastructure and server callback paths.

JSF 2.0 will adress many of those issues, I hope they can pull it off
decently.

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Zied Hamdi <ja...@gmail.com>]

Hi Wolf,

I don't know if I have badly read between the lines, but the message sun
passed on in the Sun tech Days at Paris was: scripting is the future of JEE,
and they proudly developped the idea with Groovy, Javascript, Ruby and
others. Maybe it's just a coincidence that a month later, JavaFX is
announced on many newletters...

Hi Werner,

Gmail is good, I've received your mail while writing to Wolf :-).

At the beginng of the JSF specification (2002 I think) I thought JSF will
replace all platforms: I though it will be compiled to swing, JSPs, SVG and
all we will have to do is write a sort of XML that will be transformed to
these formats, then we will have bundles of css and other stuff specific to
each technology's look: events written once and used everywhere, and design
written every time. I think it's definitely not my own dream but the dream
of every developer. I asked Sun if they plan to add an adapter to the
servlet APIon mobility so we can take profit of all tools (IDEs) and
technologies (eg. MyFaces) already available for JSF (seen that all mobile
devices support HTML today). Their answer was: "we don't plan to create
servers on mobile devices". I think the idea was already there: "they were
planning to provide a completely different technology".

Regads,
Zied

2007/7/24, Wolf Benz <eu...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> Hi Zied,
> I went to a conferencce last month(JavaOne afterglow in Brussels) but what
> they were showing was JavaFX as a Swing replacement, not for the web. I'm
> not saying it's impossible/not planned - just that I've never seen any
> code/demo for it. Or any integration initiative. (FX & JSF e.g.)
> At first impression, it also seems quite verbose. (to my taste at least)
> -Wolf
>
>
>  but the more I hear about it the more I think it's a good candidate to be
> > the next web generation, but don't forget it has JavaFX in front of it and
> > this one is making a lot more noise today...
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


-- 
Zied Hamdi
zatreex.sourceforge.net

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>]

Wolf Benz schrieb:
> +1 :-)
> I still put in any footer of my apps: Please use a standards compliant
> browser for surfing the web. We advocate Firefox for surfing the web on
> PC. Use IE at your own (security) risk.
> 
> hehe. I especially adore the last part. We should all use such headers.
> Last week I read in Eastern-Europe, FF looks at a market share of almost
> 50%, that's awesome.
> 
> Smth else: what about open laszlo? Is there no potential?

Well yes and no, this is probably where things will develop into in the
long run. History currently repeats itself with various low level ui
frameworks doing basically the same
 and high level frameworks which will covere the bridges of the
underlying incompatible base technologies.

If it is openlazlo or any other framework, I do not know. Probalby we
again will have various frameworks basically doing the same.

We are currently at the same state we had in the early ninties with a
fracturation of the market, some of the parties involved this time are
the same as they were around 1989-1992.


All I can say, is that this is a really sad situation but as long as
money and stealing public domain for the sake of greed is more important
than bringing the technology forward, I do not see a solution for all
these problems.

The problem starts with html itself, we have all these nice W3C
standards, which have been ignored for years, and the more we move
forward the worse it becomes!

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Wolf Benz <eu...@gmail.com>]

+1 :-)I still put in any footer of my apps: Please use a standards compliant
browser for surfing the web. We advocate Firefox for surfing the web on PC.
Use IE at your own (security) risk.

hehe. I especially adore the last part. We should all use such headers. Last
week I read in Eastern-Europe, FF looks at a market share of almost 50%,
that's awesome.

Smth else: what about open laszlo? Is there no potential?
-Wolf

Or in other words, the web was fun and used to work until Microsoft
> wanted to take over.
>
>
>

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>]

Wolf Benz schrieb:
> 
> Hi Zied, 
> I went to a conferencce last month(JavaOne afterglow in Brussels) but
> what they were showing was JavaFX as a Swing replacement, not for the
> web. I'm not saying it's impossible/not planned - just that I've never
> seen any code/demo for it. Or any integration initiative. (FX & JSF e.g.) 
> At first impression, it also seems quite verbose. (to my taste at least)
> -Wolf 
>  
JavaFX is basically Suns answer to Silverlight, they somehow were caught
off guard by Microsoft although Microsoft never made a secret out of it
that they were working on something which should replace flash and html
in the long run (and should lock users into windows - yes I know there
is the Mac implementation and Mono but I rather doubt those two will
survive in the long run if Silverlight really makes inroads, remember
the Unix and MacIE?)

JavaFX as far as I understood started as a project by one of the Sun
guys which was a small flash replacement which sits on top of the applet
mechanism. It was lingering on Java.net for quite a while, then
Silverlight came, and Sun promoted JavaFX big time, without still having
solved the main deployment problems of the JRE for applets :-(

I dont give it too much future, although I really like javafx, it simply
 is too late, and having a non deployable runtime does not help either,
also the rather late 2008 date for the kernel vm which should resolve
most deployment issues is rather late, given flash already is
everywhere, and silverlight simply will be bundled with windows in the
future.

I am the last one who wants to be stuck with the dreadful ajax dhtml
programming model, but as long as we cant get all parties to agree
properly on a good vendor neutral standard we are stuck.
Or in other words, the web was fun and used to work until Microsoft
wanted to take over.

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Wolf Benz <eu...@gmail.com>]

Hi Zied,
I went to a conferencce last month(JavaOne afterglow in Brussels) but what
they were showing was JavaFX as a Swing replacement, not for the web. I'm
not saying it's impossible/not planned - just that I've never seen any
code/demo for it. Or any integration initiative. (FX & JSF e.g.)
At first impression, it also seems quite verbose. (to my taste at least)
-Wolf


but the more I hear about it the more I think it's a good candidate to be
> the next web generation, but don't forget it has JavaFX in front of it and
> this one is making a lot more noise today...
>
>
>
>

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Zied Hamdi <ja...@gmail.com>]

Hi Werner,

Java's success is partly because of "safe programming", jsps are more and
more compilable* units, we even have autocompletion in it (that prooves the
file is really structured). I have read superficially about what facelets
is, I think I've understood you can "compile" to see if the outputted jsp
will be valid, that's a good point (it reminds me the first C++ compilers
that had as output C files). I still don't know a lot about facelets but the
more I hear about it the more I think it's a good candidate to be the next
web generation, but don't forget it has JavaFX in front of it and this one
is making a lot more noise today...

*By compilable I mean checked at compile time.

Regards,
Zied

2007/7/23, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>:
>
> Zied Hamdi schrieb:
> > Why didn't Sun adopt Facelets as it adopted Derby???
> >
>
> Too late for jsf 1.2, something along facelets is on the table
> for jsf 2.0 I hope Jacob can push the guys at sun into the right
> direction the sooner JSP is abandoned the better, many problems in
> jsf are caused by jsp.
>
> Ideal would be something along facelets for high level templating
> no tag handlers whatsover, only one component class, and the renderer
> also written in preferrably the same templating language.
>
>


-- 
Zied Hamdi
zatreex.sourceforge.net

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>]

Zied Hamdi schrieb:
> Why didn't Sun adopt Facelets as it adopted Derby???
>  

Too late for jsf 1.2, something along facelets is on the table
for jsf 2.0 I hope Jacob can push the guys at sun into the right 
direction the sooner JSP is abandoned the better, many problems in
jsf are caused by jsp.

Ideal would be something along facelets for high level templating
no tag handlers whatsover, only one component class, and the renderer
also written in preferrably the same templating language.

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Zied Hamdi <ja...@gmail.com>]

Ok Burghard,

Thanks for the hint ;-).

Regards,
Zied


2007/7/22, Burghard Britzke <bu...@charmides.in-berlin.de>:
>
> you can mix facelets an jsp pages in one project.
>  Am 22.07.2007 um 20:16 schrieb Zied Hamdi:
>
>  Thanks guys,
>
> Now It's maybe too late to change my project to facelets (unless there's a
> facelets transformer I didn't hear about : jsf -> facelets).
>
> I'll surely try that for my next project.
>
> Regards,
> Zied
>
>
> 2007/7/22, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> >
> > On 7/22/07, Burghard Britzke <bubi@charmides.in-berlin.de > wrote:
> > > didn't they? it seems that all of the packages at jsf-facelets.jar
> > > are com.sun... packages.
> >
> > facelets is an independent os project.
> > the package name, that might be confusing - yes-, is com.sun.....
> > the reason for that is (a guess) that jacob is working on the RI.
> > and hey, a package name is just a name :-)
> >
> > license is CDDL
> >
> > -M
> >
> > > nevertheless I changed to facelets because there are most reasons for
> > > and only very few against facelets.
> > >
> > > I got my trinidad training-app running now (with facelets) and
> > > (thanks to matthias for the  jsf-facesgoodies) with skin support.
> > >
> > > I noticed an error in safari beta version 3.0.2 (522.12) which I sent
> > > to apple. this error does not appear in the current production
> > > release of the safari browser.
> > >
> > > Am 22.07.2007 um 00:51 schrieb Zied Hamdi:
> > >
> > > > Why didn't Sun adopt Facelets as it adopted Derby???
> > > > ...
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Zied
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Zied Hamdi
> zatreex.sourceforge.net
>
>
>
>



-- 
Zied Hamdi
zatreex.sourceforge.net

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Burghard Britzke <bu...@charmides.in-berlin.de>]

you can mix facelets an jsp pages in one project.

Am 22.07.2007 um 20:16 schrieb Zied Hamdi:

> Thanks guys,
>
> Now It's maybe too late to change my project to facelets (unless  
> there's a facelets transformer I didn't hear about : jsf -> facelets).
>
> I'll surely try that for my next project.
>
> Regards,
> Zied
>
>
> 2007/7/22, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> On 7/22/07, Burghard Britzke <bubi@charmides.in-berlin.de > wrote:
> > didn't they? it seems that all of the packages at jsf-facelets.jar
> > are com.sun... packages.
>
> facelets is an independent os project.
> the package name, that might be confusing - yes-, is com.sun.....
> the reason for that is (a guess) that jacob is working on the RI.
> and hey, a package name is just a name :-)
>
> license is CDDL
>
> -M
>
> > nevertheless I changed to facelets because there are most reasons  
> for
> > and only very few against facelets.
> >
> > I got my trinidad training-app running now (with facelets) and
> > (thanks to matthias for the  jsf-facesgoodies) with skin support.
> >
> > I noticed an error in safari beta version 3.0.2 (522.12) which I  
> sent
> > to apple. this error does not appear in the current production
> > release of the safari browser.
> >
> > Am 22.07.2007 um 00:51 schrieb Zied Hamdi:
> >
> > > Why didn't Sun adopt Facelets as it adopted Derby???
> > > ...
> > > Regards,
> > > Zied
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
>
>
> -- 
> Zied Hamdi
> zatreex.sourceforge.net

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Zied Hamdi <ja...@gmail.com>]

Thanks guys,

Now It's maybe too late to change my project to facelets (unless there's a
facelets transformer I didn't hear about : jsf -> facelets).

I'll surely try that for my next project.

Regards,
Zied


2007/7/22, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
>
> On 7/22/07, Burghard Britzke <bu...@charmides.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > didn't they? it seems that all of the packages at jsf-facelets.jar
> > are com.sun... packages.
>
> facelets is an independent os project.
> the package name, that might be confusing - yes-, is com.sun.....
> the reason for that is (a guess) that jacob is working on the RI.
> and hey, a package name is just a name :-)
>
> license is CDDL
>
> -M
>
> > nevertheless I changed to facelets because there are most reasons for
> > and only very few against facelets.
> >
> > I got my trinidad training-app running now (with facelets) and
> > (thanks to matthias for the  jsf-facesgoodies) with skin support.
> >
> > I noticed an error in safari beta version 3.0.2 (522.12) which I sent
> > to apple. this error does not appear in the current production
> > release of the safari browser.
> >
> > Am 22.07.2007 um 00:51 schrieb Zied Hamdi:
> >
> > > Why didn't Sun adopt Facelets as it adopted Derby???
> > > ...
> > > Regards,
> > > Zied
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>



-- 
Zied Hamdi
zatreex.sourceforge.net

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

On 7/22/07, Burghard Britzke <bu...@charmides.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> didn't they? it seems that all of the packages at jsf-facelets.jar
> are com.sun... packages.

facelets is an independent os project.
the package name, that might be confusing - yes-, is com.sun.....
the reason for that is (a guess) that jacob is working on the RI.
and hey, a package name is just a name :-)

license is CDDL

-M

> nevertheless I changed to facelets because there are most reasons for
> and only very few against facelets.
>
> I got my trinidad training-app running now (with facelets) and
> (thanks to matthias for the  jsf-facesgoodies) with skin support.
>
> I noticed an error in safari beta version 3.0.2 (522.12) which I sent
> to apple. this error does not appear in the current production
> release of the safari browser.
>
> Am 22.07.2007 um 00:51 schrieb Zied Hamdi:
>
> > Why didn't Sun adopt Facelets as it adopted Derby???
> > ...
> > Regards,
> > Zied
> >
>
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Burghard Britzke <bu...@charmides.in-berlin.de>]

didn't they? it seems that all of the packages at jsf-facelets.jar  
are com.sun... packages.

nevertheless I changed to facelets because there are most reasons for  
and only very few against facelets.

I got my trinidad training-app running now (with facelets) and  
(thanks to matthias for the  jsf-facesgoodies) with skin support.

I noticed an error in safari beta version 3.0.2 (522.12) which I sent  
to apple. this error does not appear in the current production  
release of the safari browser.

Am 22.07.2007 um 00:51 schrieb Zied Hamdi:

> Why didn't Sun adopt Facelets as it adopted Derby???
> ...
> Regards,
> Zied
>

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Zied Hamdi <ja...@gmail.com>]

Why didn't Sun adopt Facelets as it adopted Derby???

All I know about facelets is that it takes me one step further away from the
servlet API, that sounds good, but how does it work to template new libs?
for my case, is there the possibility to template tobago components through
facelets?

Thank you for your answer in advance, I took a look at what is facelets two
months ago, and since I was too new to JSF, it scared me a little to have an
IR command for my IR command...

Regards,
Zied



2007/7/21, Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>:
>
> +1 on those reasons
>
> also no need for verbatim tags!
>
> On 7/21/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'd use facelets.
> > things like JSF 1.1 + Facelets allow you to do jsf 12 stuff
> > nice templating
> > nice composite components
> > nice el funcs
> > performance
> >
> > -M
> >
> > On 7/21/07, Burghard Britzke <bu...@charmides.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > in conjunction with myfaces or jsf for general: should I use facelets
> > > or jsp if I would have the choice?
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>



-- 
Zied Hamdi
zatreex.sourceforge.net

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>]

+1 on those reasons

also no need for verbatim tags!

On 7/21/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd use facelets.
> things like JSF 1.1 + Facelets allow you to do jsf 12 stuff
> nice templating
> nice composite components
> nice el funcs
> performance
>
> -M
>
> On 7/21/07, Burghard Britzke <bu...@charmides.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > in conjunction with myfaces or jsf for general: should I use facelets
> > or jsp if I would have the choice?
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>

Re: facelets vs. jsp

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

I'd use facelets.
things like JSF 1.1 + Facelets allow you to do jsf 12 stuff
nice templating
nice composite components
nice el funcs
performance

-M

On 7/21/07, Burghard Britzke <bu...@charmides.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> in conjunction with myfaces or jsf for general: should I use facelets
> or jsp if I would have the choice?
>


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org