You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@struts.apache.org by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com> on 2006/01/11 16:51:28 UTC
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice
between Shale or Struts-Faces
On Wed, January 11, 2006 10:06 am, Rick Reumann said:
> Anyway, I'm totally babbling now, but am I the only one that feels this
> confusion? It's more confusing when you try to think of how you can use
> these different technologies together (ie Shale and MyFaces).
You are most definitely NOT alone. I can't tell you how many people I
hear from (because I've posted my less than positive feelings on JSF
numerous times I suppose) saying essentially the same thing. JSF may
indeed be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but many people seem to
have a hard time getting the information they need to reach that
conclusion.
My major complaint is that every single example and tutorial I've found is
so simplistic and frankly ugly as hell that it can't help but cast JSF in
a bad light. It makes it seem like all you can do is webapps that look
like something straight out of 1996... and I know that isn't an accurate
representation of what JSF can do, but it's the conclusion one reaches in
seeing all these examples. Just once I'd like to see a good, interesting,
MODERN-LOOKING and well-documented example that shows off all the supposed
benefits of JSF. If I were a JSF supporter out there, I'd get this done
and get it in front of people ASAP.
My secondary complaint is that nearly every article I read starts off with
"JSF simplifies things and makes your life easier", and then proceeds to
completely negate that statement with all sorts of config files and code
like this:
String var =
(String)FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getRequestParameterMap().get("variableName");
Just an example, and maybe not the best one, but I see A LOT of JSF
example code that has a bunch of stringed-together method calls like this.
I don't know what anyone else' opinion is, but I don't look at a line of
code like that and think "yeah, this is so much easier!". I'm not saying
there isn't some benefit, and I would assume there are ways around it (I'd
bet Shale provides many of them) but it's hard to see what the point is
when confronted with lines like that.
So no, you aren't alone. I've changed my own tune over time... I used to
be pretty strongly anti-JSF, I'm not any more. Now, I keep looking at it
fresh every few months, trying to do some small project with it and trying
to convince myself it's good. I haven't gotten there yet, but I'm not
giving up either. My hope in the end is that it is a viable ALTERNATIVE,
which I think would be great. If it becomes THE way webapps are developed
though, I for one, as JSF exists today, will hate my life :)
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between
Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
That may be true, but my point is that I hear a lot of developers asking
"why is JSF better?", and my contention is that very few, if any,
examples that exists today really provides that answer. Craig mentioned
MailReader as the cannonical application around these parts, and I just
said that MailReader doesn't really answer that question.
And I don't think its the marketing folks that needs to be convinced
about JSF anyway... they could care less what us architects and
developers use, for the most part. It's the *developers* asking that
question, and many are not getting the answer (some apparently are, and
I'd be interested to know how!).
Frank
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> Mailreader is for developers, not for people from marketing
> department. It is not supposed to be beautiful, it is supposed to show
> how common tasks are done with Struts: data in, processing, data out.
> How it is presented is not that important. I mean it is important that
> a framework can generate lists or comboboxes or trees (can Struts
> generate trees?). But the actual styling is of less importance. One
> just needs to know can he change the style and how easy.
>
> I think that JSF should work better with XHTML/CSS-style web
> development. Spit out a generic list or table in a DIV and apply
> external CSS to it. It should be as simple as that. One can visit CSS
> Zen Garden for examples of how cool XHTML can look like.
>
> Michael.
>
> On 1/11/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
>
>>I would agree, except for the fact that MailReader is not by any measure
>>an impressive application (sufficient yes, but not impressive)... in the
>>context of JSF (and Shale), where at least part of the point is to
>>enable easily building more advanced types of applications (that *IS*
>>part of the point, right?!?), I don't think it would do justice to the
>>technologies its demoing. I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to think the
>>best JSF can do is MailReader, would we?? :) (even me, who isn't
>>exactly a JSF booster, wouldn't find that fair)
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>Craig McClanahan wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/11/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>My major complaint is that every single example and tutorial I've found is
>>>>so simplistic and frankly ugly as hell that it can't help but cast JSF in
>>>>a bad light
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure sounds a lot like a canonical example program that's been around here
>>>for a few years ... Struts MailReader :-).
>
>
>
>
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
AIM: fzammetti
Yahoo: fzammetti
MSN: fzammetti@hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>.
On 1/12/06, Alexandre Poitras <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/12/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > Alexandre Poitras wrote:
> > > I agree with you Michael since our designer is a big fan of Zen Garden
> > > and I must say I don't miss working with tables :) I would like a
> > > strict XHTML rendererkit but I must say that at least the JSF standard
> > > components don't produce garbage . What I am doing right now is
> > > developping new renderers for the components I need, it doesn't take a
> > > big effort anyway. Maybe I can regroup those renderer in a rendererkit
> > > once I have several renderers done. But it's the main weakness of a
> > Hint, you could donate it to myfaces ;-)
>
> Of course, when I have a couple of them done. But someone is probably
> going to beat me to the line. Apache development is so fast, probably
> because it regroups so many smart people.
The "smart people" are also genuinely appreciative of contributions, no
matter when they happen. Who knows, you might actually be able to beat them
... after all, they/we all have day jobs too :-).
Seriously, you wouldn't need to have them all done to propose a
contribution. After all, if others buy into your basic approach, maybe
you'll get other folks involved in helping finish that task. *That* is
actually one of the key reasons open source projects can respond quickly --
unfinished code sitting in a directory on your computer is limited by your
own time availability; unfinished code in an open source sandbox could serve
as the inspiration for other folks to help with the work.
Craig
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by Alexandre Poitras <al...@gmail.com>.
On 1/12/06, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Alexandre Poitras wrote:
> > I agree with you Michael since our designer is a big fan of Zen Garden
> > and I must say I don't miss working with tables :) I would like a
> > strict XHTML rendererkit but I must say that at least the JSF standard
> > components don't produce garbage . What I am doing right now is
> > developping new renderers for the components I need, it doesn't take a
> > big effort anyway. Maybe I can regroup those renderer in a rendererkit
> > once I have several renderers done. But it's the main weakness of a
> Hint, you could donate it to myfaces ;-)
Of course, when I have a couple of them done. But someone is probably
going to beat me to the line. Apache development is so fast, probably
because it regroups so many smart people.
> > component approach, having to deal with the generation of markup that
> > maybe you don't like. But at least in JSF the renderer is separated
> > from the UI component.
> >
> yes one big plus of myfaces is this separation, it is one of the points
> which makes the component programming really awkward at the first sight
> (the other one being the taglib docking code), but it is not like
> you develop components every day, due to the fact there already are so
> many of them.
> This separation in the first place between taglib code, view logic and
> controller logic on component level with xml as binding in between is
> awkward, but if you need special cases then it is rather "easy" to
> adjust those to your needs without breaking existing code.
>
> The component api definitely at first sight is hell to program for in
> JSF, but for easy on program componentization there already are easier
> solutions like shale clay, facelets, aliasbeans etc...
> but in the end it pays off if you need special cases like this one.
>
> (Hint the component api itself is one of the major gripes I still have
> with JSF, it only can become better)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
Alexandre Poitras
Québec, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between
Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Alexandre Poitras wrote:
> I agree with you Michael since our designer is a big fan of Zen Garden
> and I must say I don't miss working with tables :) I would like a
> strict XHTML rendererkit but I must say that at least the JSF standard
> components don't produce garbage . What I am doing right now is
> developping new renderers for the components I need, it doesn't take a
> big effort anyway. Maybe I can regroup those renderer in a rendererkit
> once I have several renderers done. But it's the main weakness of a
Hint, you could donate it to myfaces ;-)
> component approach, having to deal with the generation of markup that
> maybe you don't like. But at least in JSF the renderer is separated
> from the UI component.
>
yes one big plus of myfaces is this separation, it is one of the points
which makes the component programming really awkward at the first sight
(the other one being the taglib docking code), but it is not like
you develop components every day, due to the fact there already are so
many of them.
This separation in the first place between taglib code, view logic and
controller logic on component level with xml as binding in between is
awkward, but if you need special cases then it is rather "easy" to
adjust those to your needs without breaking existing code.
The component api definitely at first sight is hell to program for in
JSF, but for easy on program componentization there already are easier
solutions like shale clay, facelets, aliasbeans etc...
but in the end it pays off if you need special cases like this one.
(Hint the component api itself is one of the major gripes I still have
with JSF, it only can become better)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by Alexandre Poitras <al...@gmail.com>.
I agree with you Michael since our designer is a big fan of Zen Garden
and I must say I don't miss working with tables :) I would like a
strict XHTML rendererkit but I must say that at least the JSF standard
components don't produce garbage . What I am doing right now is
developping new renderers for the components I need, it doesn't take a
big effort anyway. Maybe I can regroup those renderer in a rendererkit
once I have several renderers done. But it's the main weakness of a
component approach, having to deal with the generation of markup that
maybe you don't like. But at least in JSF the renderer is separated
from the UI component.
On 1/11/06, Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mailreader is for developers, not for people from marketing
> department. It is not supposed to be beautiful, it is supposed to show
> how common tasks are done with Struts: data in, processing, data out.
> How it is presented is not that important. I mean it is important that
> a framework can generate lists or comboboxes or trees (can Struts
> generate trees?). But the actual styling is of less importance. One
> just needs to know can he change the style and how easy.
>
> I think that JSF should work better with XHTML/CSS-style web
> development. Spit out a generic list or table in a DIV and apply
> external CSS to it. It should be as simple as that. One can visit CSS
> Zen Garden for examples of how cool XHTML can look like.
>
> Michael.
>
> On 1/11/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> > I would agree, except for the fact that MailReader is not by any measure
> > an impressive application (sufficient yes, but not impressive)... in the
> > context of JSF (and Shale), where at least part of the point is to
> > enable easily building more advanced types of applications (that *IS*
> > part of the point, right?!?), I don't think it would do justice to the
> > technologies its demoing. I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to think the
> > best JSF can do is MailReader, would we?? :) (even me, who isn't
> > exactly a JSF booster, wouldn't find that fair)
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > > On 1/11/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>My major complaint is that every single example and tutorial I've found is
> > >>so simplistic and frankly ugly as hell that it can't help but cast JSF in
> > >>a bad light
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure sounds a lot like a canonical example program that's been around here
> > > for a few years ... Struts MailReader :-).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
Alexandre Poitras
Québec, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com>.
Mailreader is for developers, not for people from marketing
department. It is not supposed to be beautiful, it is supposed to show
how common tasks are done with Struts: data in, processing, data out.
How it is presented is not that important. I mean it is important that
a framework can generate lists or comboboxes or trees (can Struts
generate trees?). But the actual styling is of less importance. One
just needs to know can he change the style and how easy.
I think that JSF should work better with XHTML/CSS-style web
development. Spit out a generic list or table in a DIV and apply
external CSS to it. It should be as simple as that. One can visit CSS
Zen Garden for examples of how cool XHTML can look like.
Michael.
On 1/11/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> I would agree, except for the fact that MailReader is not by any measure
> an impressive application (sufficient yes, but not impressive)... in the
> context of JSF (and Shale), where at least part of the point is to
> enable easily building more advanced types of applications (that *IS*
> part of the point, right?!?), I don't think it would do justice to the
> technologies its demoing. I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to think the
> best JSF can do is MailReader, would we?? :) (even me, who isn't
> exactly a JSF booster, wouldn't find that fair)
>
> Frank
>
> Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > On 1/11/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>My major complaint is that every single example and tutorial I've found is
> >>so simplistic and frankly ugly as hell that it can't help but cast JSF in
> >>a bad light
> >
> >
> >
> > Sure sounds a lot like a canonical example program that's been around here
> > for a few years ... Struts MailReader :-).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between
Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
I would agree, except for the fact that MailReader is not by any measure
an impressive application (sufficient yes, but not impressive)... in the
context of JSF (and Shale), where at least part of the point is to
enable easily building more advanced types of applications (that *IS*
part of the point, right?!?), I don't think it would do justice to the
technologies its demoing. I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to think the
best JSF can do is MailReader, would we?? :) (even me, who isn't
exactly a JSF booster, wouldn't find that fair)
Frank
Craig McClanahan wrote:
> On 1/11/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>My major complaint is that every single example and tutorial I've found is
>>so simplistic and frankly ugly as hell that it can't help but cast JSF in
>>a bad light
>
>
>
> Sure sounds a lot like a canonical example program that's been around here
> for a few years ... Struts MailReader :-).
>
> Craig
>
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
AIM: fzammetti
Yahoo: fzammetti
MSN: fzammetti@hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>.
On 1/11/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
>
>
> My major complaint is that every single example and tutorial I've found is
> so simplistic and frankly ugly as hell that it can't help but cast JSF in
> a bad light
Sure sounds a lot like a canonical example program that's been around here
for a few years ... Struts MailReader :-).
Craig
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
gramani@intellicare.com schrieb:
>
> Hi Werner, do you mean "Derek Shen"? I found this:
> http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-07-2004/jw-0719-jsf.html and he does
> have a "FacesUtils" .. just wanted to make sure this si what you are
> alluding to..?
>
yes...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice
Posted by gr...@intellicare.com.
news <ne...@sea.gmane.org> wrote on 01/11/2006 11:34:12 AM:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> >
> > String var =
> > (String)FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().
> getRequestParameterMap().get("variableName");
> >
> A yes the lovely Request Factory->context...-> cascade....
>
> I personally always use either ioc for managed beans
> or some utils classes (there is a very good one I found
> on javaworld, written by Derek Chen)
>
> with Derek Chens JSF Utils class it is like that:
> JSFUtils.getRequestParameter("variableName")
>
Hi Werner, do you mean "Derek Shen"? I found this:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-07-2004/jw-0719-jsf.html and he does
have a "FacesUtils" .. just wanted to make sure this si what you are
alluding to..?
Thanks,
Geeta
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice
between Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>
> String var =
> (String)FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getRequestParameterMap().get("variableName");
>
A yes the lovely Request Factory->context...-> cascade....
I personally always use either ioc for managed beans
or some utils classes (there is a very good one I found
on javaworld, written by Derek Chen)
with Derek Chens JSF Utils class it is like that:
JSFUtils.getRequestParameter("variableName")
Why the JSF specificators did not have thought of convenience classes
like that in the first place is beyound me, because all the
infrastructure you need is in place.
In my opinion the request singleton itself via the FacesContext is one
of the nicest things in JSF structurewise, because it eases you of the
burden of having either a parent class or parameters which are
infrastructure related, all you need is a pojo. All which is missing is
some helper class which simplifies things, and not having that specified
in the first place is something which still is beyound me.
And yes JSF makes many things simpler, by providing additional
infrastructure, high level components but some areas are messy, here is
a short list:
a) The whole FacesContext singleton is badly in need for a convenience
util class
b) The lifecycle handling is a tad to complicated, adressed by the Shale
viewhandlers in an excellent way
c) The whole datamodel API is unfortunatly a tad to generic which makes
the implementation of custom datamodels too complicated for my personal
taste
d) There is no real scoping beyound, session, request and application
(This issue has been addressed now, by shale, saveState in myFaces
tomahwak, Seam and probably other frameworks or extensions)
e) No easy client side component creation out of the box, this isse has
been adressed so far now by, Shale Clay, Facelets, Tomahwak aliasbeans
und to a certain degree by Tapestry which also has bindings into JSF.
The rest are documentation issues, like it definitely needs a good
tutorial book on the web, which goes way beyound the usual hello world
examples.
Good points:
The component infrastructure really has become huge in the last year
with hundreds of components available for free (one thing which yet
still has to be more propagated)
Some of this stuff saves a lot of time, the components are one, the
validation conversion handling also, the IOC infrasctructure also helps
to keep the code clean and saves time.
The event system simply is excellent.
Once you move beyound the RI, you can find lots of stuff which adresses
serious issues, scoping, componentization, client side validation,
high level components, removal of config entries by pushing the stuff
into the domains of annotations (shale Tiger extensions come to mind,
also Seam, which outright is excellent)
So is it perfect, hell no, it has flaws, but it is definitely a huge
move forward,but not due to the fact that there is a RI which most
people dismiss as probably all there is in JSF, but due to the fact
lots of people have added lots of extra value in a short period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org