You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@struts.apache.org by Rick Reumann <st...@reumann.net> on 2006/01/11 16:06:22 UTC
[OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between
Shale or Struts-Faces
Craig McClanahan wrote the following on 1/10/2006 7:37 PM:
> Not really. Shale is a completely separate framework that leverages the
> fact that JSF already provides a controller servlet, plus support for
> navigation and other simiklar things. It shares no code with the
> Struts 1.xcontroller framework.
This is one of the major obstacles right now with JSF I believe. It's
confusing as heck to try to figure what the heck you need and where in
the world you go to get everything to build your application. I'm know
Craig you have been more than kind numerous times explaining all the
differences and nuances between different related technologies, but it
would be nice if when someone new starts using google they can quickly
find out what's up - currently this is not the case - not without a LOT
of work and/or luck.
Try to pretend you just know a little about the buzz words.. JSF and
Shale. Now start googling to try to understand JSF. The Sun site I think
is pretty poorly organized. This article
http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/GUI/JavaServerFaces/
there was quite good but it doesn't cover a lot of different things.. I
don't think it even mentions MyFaces.
Google further and you find JSF Central which has a LOT of stuff which
is nice and it's organized in decent sections, but many of the tutorials
or lessons seem to focus on specific aspects, not many I've found just
trying to tie together a few common technologies one would use. Maybe
there is also an article embedded somewhere there that helps make sense
out of all the related JSF technologies but I'm not sure where it would be.
I guess what I'm getting at is there really should be a simple page that
dumbs down with a quick overview of what you really might need to get
started and what benefits you get involving other related JSF
technologies. I know JSF is really a spec and not an implementation, but
this in and of itself is a bit confusing, since when you go to the Sun
JSF site you are getting obviously some kind of implementation when you
download (sheesh I forgot what you download there to get it.. maybe Sun
Studio Creator?). I'm also yet to see how you could develop anything
meaningful without something like MyFaces or maybe Oracle ADF so really
I think someone almost needs to start there. Think if you just started
reading about JSP and Servlets.. someone tells you that JSF is a spec
built on top of the ServletAPI, but Shale is also built on top of JSF as
is MyFaces, but you can also use MyFaces and Shale together for your JSF
project, yet you really don't need either to get started. It can get
confusing quite quickly - yet the benefit to JSF I thought was that it's
going to be easier to get a handle on than say Struts.
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).
Now, trust me, I'm not pro Microsoft by any stretch. I haven't even
coded a single ASP application (have done some winforms stuff though),
but I can see if I was an IT manager why I might simply go "Let's just
go with .NET." The reason being, even if it's sort of sucky, at least
you know what you are getting (insert 'pile of dog doo' jokes here) and
you know what you are working with. Right now a company deciding to go
with JSF seems to be akin to telling the developers .. "Hey you need a
PC to use to get you job done, go out to newegg and order all your parts
you need and put it together." Sure you might end up with a great
product, possibly better than the Dell you'll get from a supplier, but
I'm not so sure the upfront time to get there is worth it (yet). I think
the opensource world needs a balance between providing "too much
scattered all over the place" and the MS "one size fits all solution."
Maybe if I wasn't so busy with other things (I know, who isn't busy),
I'd get around to helping out to try to clear out the confusion
surrounding all these related technologies but I haven't invested enough
time to make sense of it all myself yet. If there is an article that
explains how they all relate, I think it should be stickied on the home
page of JSF Central as that seems to be the second major hit on google
when searching for JSF related information.
--
Rick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice
between Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
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 Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
I am also in a hurry so I will answer more extensively later...
just to your problem now
Rick Reumann schrieb:
>
> Sort off-topic but what do you use in JSF to create a display of List
> data from a managedBean? I believe I was told to use DataTable and
> that's what I used in my lesson, but I thought that was rather limiting.
> Maybe I want to create a bunch of divs and don't want to be using
> t:column. Is there a Component equivalent of a simple forEach loop that
> works well with managedBean list content?
>
Actually there are various ways:
Datatable is a viable approach,
but MyFaces also has a generic datalist, which does the c:foreach (which
is rather forbidden in JSF 1.1, in jsf 1.2 it should work again)
within the datalist you can place any component you like, even verbatims.
I used a combined approach of datatable and datalist with sergeijs
jsf:html tags for my last application (the datalist for a table with
dynamic colspans)
One big advantage of the datatable is, that you can get paging out of
the box via datascroller components, so it is very powerful, but the
main limit is, that you are somewhat limited with the layout (dynamic
colspan is not really that easy to achieve, css per row or column is easy)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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>.
On 1/11/06, Rick Reumann <st...@reumann.net> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately I have to run out to do some things this afternoon, and
> can't reply in as much detail as I'd like to the below, but I'll quickly
> comment...
>
> Werner Punz wrote the following on 1/11/2006 10:51 AM:
> > Hi Rick the confusion you are talking about, is basically the same you
> > have by jumping onto any framework.
>
> I don't think that is the case. You might have trouble getting started
> with say Struts or Webwork but you are basically just looking up stuff
> on working with that 'framework' - You aren't having to discern "Can I
> just use JSF out of the box (whatever that box even is, as I forgot now
> how you even get just vanilla JSF)?" "Do I need MyFaces?" "Do I need
> "Oracle ADF?" "Do I need Shale?" Trust me I understand no new framework
> is really easy to learn but I'd like most of my framework to be self
> contained in jars related exactly "to" that framework. I understand with
> Struts I might want to get iBATIS or hibernate working with it, or maybe
> even Spring, but those areas are really truly separate from say Struts.
> I don't seem to get the same experience when trying to learn about JSF.
I think you are confusing by Faces because it is a specification. A spec. by
definition can have a lot of implementations, ie 3 in the JSF world Oracle
ADF, Apache MyFaces, SUN RI. Oracle ADF and Apache MyFaces both add custom
components throught subprojects. I don't think it is confusing once you
understand the premise that JSF is a speculation. The custom components are
all based on the same model whereas in Struts, you have to use Struts-menu,
Display-tag libs, ... In JSF everything is a component so you pick those you
want. Shale and Facelets are both technologies adressing some shortcoming of
JSF, what they didn't have the time to put in for example. Craig said a
couple of times (from what I remember), it would like Shale to in part a
testing ground for JSF 2.0.
I don't think it is so confusing but I would agree with you that JSF lack a
good community site. The document is rather sparse for the moment.
Hopefully, things will change. My advice would be to buy a book, you'll be
sure to have everything to understand the basic of JSF.
> Mind you that I had to move from JSF to Struts for a project a while
> > ago, and I had the same feeling backwards ;-)
>
> I would really have liked to see the path you took to figuring out
> Struts. One of the nice things about Struts is A) You don't have to use
> all of the features at once and B) you can always fall back on the basic
> JSF/ServletAPI to bail you out when in a time crunch. In JSF can I use
> JSTL to create an simple form input that I'll be able to easily process
> in my backing bean using request.getParemeter(..) if I wanted? I'm
> guessing there is a way, but I doubt it would be that intuitive.
>
> >
> > A very good entry point into jsf is:
> > www.jsftutorials.net/
>
> I've looked at some of those before and I wasn't very impressed. I
> wasn't able to find an example of doing typical CRUD stuff... which is
> why when I found out just enough to be dangerous I wrote my own lesson
> http://www.learntechnology.net/jsf-crud.do to try to at least represent
> something someone might be doing in 'real life' but yet kept simple.
> (Actually I'd appreciate if you downloaded and tried it out - there is
> one part there that I really need fixed.. when you resort it runs into
> problems when clicking on the row to edit/delete).
>
> >
> > But as is I can say, get a good book, there you have the info mostly
> > centralized and preprepared for learning
> > (Although I cannot give the Kito book a good recommendation as entry
> > point, due to the fact, that it overwhelms you with sideinformation, it
> > is excellent as reference literature though, and probably the best
> > coverage of jsf technologywise, although much stuff in there nowadays
> > can be solved easier)
>
> Maybe I'll try that one. I tried another one (not going to name names)
> and I found the first 3 or 4 chapters helpful after that it was mostly
> just chapter after chapter of using components.
> >
> > And yes you cannot get anything worthwile done without any component or
> > extension pack, it is simply due to the fact that basic jsf limits
> > itself to the html controls, you get with basic jsf basically the same
> > set of components and to some degree functionality as with basic Struts.
> > But one of the points of JSF is the component packs, and I think it
> > should be more propagized that if you want to use JSF, also look for
> > components, otherwise you will be in for a dissapointment.
> > ADF as well as Tomahawk and others already are very extensive in their
> > user interface coverage, and things become better every month.
>
> Agreed, you need those component packs to do anything worthwhile and yet
> those component packs almost become as a critical to understand as the
> framework itself, which adds to way more confusing. If someone wrote an
> application with MyFaces components and some other team used some other
> components it's not going to be easy to just switch around. For example
> I had to use the Tomahawk <t:saveState ...> tag .. does Oracle ADF have
> that? It drastically changes what you can do within the form when you
> use t:saveState. And yes, all those guys do a great job putting out new
> things, but what if you don't want to wait for a component to be
> enhanced? It's not like you can just jump out and code that part with
> straight HTML and that's the part I find frustrating.
>
> Sort off-topic but what do you use in JSF to create a display of List
> data from a managedBean? I believe I was told to use DataTable and
> that's what I used in my lesson, but I thought that was rather limiting.
> Maybe I want to create a bunch of divs and don't want to be using
> t:column. Is there a Component equivalent of a simple forEach loop that
> works well with managedBean list content?
>
> Please don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-JSF - I really like a LOT of it.
> I just wish there was some kind of effort to bring a lot of this
> together into one 'framework' - I know this goes against a lot of the
> open source thinking, but if Shale is that useful, which I believe it
> is, I'd like to see maybe absorbed into something like MyFaces.. is that
> a possibility? It's just confusing about what you truly need to get to
> be productive.
>
>
> --
> Rick
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
Alexandre Poitras
Québec, Canada
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, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> Rick Reumann schrieb:
>
> > Please don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-JSF - I really like a LOT of it.
> > I just wish there was some kind of effort to bring a lot of this
> > together into one 'framework' - I know this goes against a lot of the
> > open source thinking, but if Shale is that useful, which I believe it
> > is, I'd like to see maybe absorbed into something like MyFaces.. is that
> > a possibility? It's just confusing about what you truly need to get to
> > be productive.
> >
> >
> Just another sidenote before I have to leave, as it looks now, MyFaces
> sort of slowly is becoming that framework.
>
> Dont get me wrong, what you want is close to impossible, because JSF
> basically is a spec upon which frameworks can build upon.
Exactly. That is what both Shale and MyFaces's components are about
(although these two frameworks focus on different pieces of the problem --
Shale is about the back end architecture, while MyFaces is focusing on
components). The good news is that they work together.
But given the current state of myfaces, although it is only JSF 1.1 for
> now, it slowly is becoming a semi defacto framework of choice for many,
> due to the fact, that the Tomahawk components are already very
> extensive, Orcale currently is moving some of the ADF the codebase
> towards apache (and it is very likely that it will end up in MyFaces)
> and the Tobago components soon also will be in there, to my knowledge.
>
> So recommending MyFaces as a framework starting point definitely is a
> wise decision.
Interestingly, this is where the value of having a standard comes in. It's
the fact that there *is* a common API that different frameworks can program
to, and then have some confidence that they can interoperate, that creates a
lot of the value JSF brings to the table, above and beyond it's intrinsic
technical capabilities.
Compare that to the "interesting" issues you sometimes get trying to
intermix JSP tag libraries together, and make them interoperate.
Craig
Re: [OT] Getting started is confusing [was] Re: Need advice between
Shale or Struts-Faces
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>.
Rick Reumann schrieb:
> Please don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-JSF - I really like a LOT of it.
> I just wish there was some kind of effort to bring a lot of this
> together into one 'framework' - I know this goes against a lot of the
> open source thinking, but if Shale is that useful, which I believe it
> is, I'd like to see maybe absorbed into something like MyFaces.. is that
> a possibility? It's just confusing about what you truly need to get to
> be productive.
>
>
Just another sidenote before I have to leave, as it looks now, MyFaces
sort of slowly is becoming that framework.
Dont get me wrong, what you want is close to impossible, because JSF
basically is a spec upon which frameworks can build upon.
But given the current state of myfaces, although it is only JSF 1.1 for
now, it slowly is becoming a semi defacto framework of choice for many,
due to the fact, that the Tomahawk components are already very
extensive, Orcale currently is moving some of the ADF the codebase
towards apache (and it is very likely that it will end up in MyFaces)
and the Tobago components soon also will be in there, to my knowledge.
So recommending MyFaces as a framework starting point definitely is a
wise decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Rick Reumann <st...@reumann.net>.
Unfortunately I have to run out to do some things this afternoon, and
can't reply in as much detail as I'd like to the below, but I'll quickly
comment...
Werner Punz wrote the following on 1/11/2006 10:51 AM:
> Hi Rick the confusion you are talking about, is basically the same you
> have by jumping onto any framework.
I don't think that is the case. You might have trouble getting started
with say Struts or Webwork but you are basically just looking up stuff
on working with that 'framework' - You aren't having to discern "Can I
just use JSF out of the box (whatever that box even is, as I forgot now
how you even get just vanilla JSF)?" "Do I need MyFaces?" "Do I need
"Oracle ADF?" "Do I need Shale?" Trust me I understand no new framework
is really easy to learn but I'd like most of my framework to be self
contained in jars related exactly "to" that framework. I understand with
Struts I might want to get iBATIS or hibernate working with it, or maybe
even Spring, but those areas are really truly separate from say Struts.
I don't seem to get the same experience when trying to learn about JSF.
> Mind you that I had to move from JSF to Struts for a project a while
> ago, and I had the same feeling backwards ;-)
I would really have liked to see the path you took to figuring out
Struts. One of the nice things about Struts is A) You don't have to use
all of the features at once and B) you can always fall back on the basic
JSF/ServletAPI to bail you out when in a time crunch. In JSF can I use
JSTL to create an simple form input that I'll be able to easily process
in my backing bean using request.getParemeter(..) if I wanted? I'm
guessing there is a way, but I doubt it would be that intuitive.
>
> A very good entry point into jsf is:
> www.jsftutorials.net/
I've looked at some of those before and I wasn't very impressed. I
wasn't able to find an example of doing typical CRUD stuff... which is
why when I found out just enough to be dangerous I wrote my own lesson
http://www.learntechnology.net/jsf-crud.do to try to at least represent
something someone might be doing in 'real life' but yet kept simple.
(Actually I'd appreciate if you downloaded and tried it out - there is
one part there that I really need fixed.. when you resort it runs into
problems when clicking on the row to edit/delete).
>
> But as is I can say, get a good book, there you have the info mostly
> centralized and preprepared for learning
> (Although I cannot give the Kito book a good recommendation as entry
> point, due to the fact, that it overwhelms you with sideinformation, it
> is excellent as reference literature though, and probably the best
> coverage of jsf technologywise, although much stuff in there nowadays
> can be solved easier)
Maybe I'll try that one. I tried another one (not going to name names)
and I found the first 3 or 4 chapters helpful after that it was mostly
just chapter after chapter of using components.
>
> And yes you cannot get anything worthwile done without any component or
> extension pack, it is simply due to the fact that basic jsf limits
> itself to the html controls, you get with basic jsf basically the same
> set of components and to some degree functionality as with basic Struts.
> But one of the points of JSF is the component packs, and I think it
> should be more propagized that if you want to use JSF, also look for
> components, otherwise you will be in for a dissapointment.
> ADF as well as Tomahawk and others already are very extensive in their
> user interface coverage, and things become better every month.
Agreed, you need those component packs to do anything worthwhile and yet
those component packs almost become as a critical to understand as the
framework itself, which adds to way more confusing. If someone wrote an
application with MyFaces components and some other team used some other
components it's not going to be easy to just switch around. For example
I had to use the Tomahawk <t:saveState ...> tag .. does Oracle ADF have
that? It drastically changes what you can do within the form when you
use t:saveState. And yes, all those guys do a great job putting out new
things, but what if you don't want to wait for a component to be
enhanced? It's not like you can just jump out and code that part with
straight HTML and that's the part I find frustrating.
Sort off-topic but what do you use in JSF to create a display of List
data from a managedBean? I believe I was told to use DataTable and
that's what I used in my lesson, but I thought that was rather limiting.
Maybe I want to create a bunch of divs and don't want to be using
t:column. Is there a Component equivalent of a simple forEach loop that
works well with managedBean list content?
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-JSF - I really like a LOT of it.
I just wish there was some kind of effort to bring a lot of this
together into one 'framework' - I know this goes against a lot of the
open source thinking, but if Shale is that useful, which I believe it
is, I'd like to see maybe absorbed into something like MyFaces.. is that
a possibility? It's just confusing about what you truly need to get to
be productive.
--
Rick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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>.
Hi Rick the confusion you are talking about, is basically the same you
have by jumping onto any framework.
Mind you that I had to move from JSF to Struts for a project a while
ago, and I had the same feeling backwards ;-)
A very good entry point into jsf is:
www.jsftutorials.net/
But as is I can say, get a good book, there you have the info mostly
centralized and preprepared for learning
(Although I cannot give the Kito book a good recommendation as entry
point, due to the fact, that it overwhelms you with sideinformation, it
is excellent as reference literature though, and probably the best
coverage of jsf technologywise, although much stuff in there nowadays
can be solved easier)
And yes you cannot get anything worthwile done without any component or
extension pack, it is simply due to the fact that basic jsf limits
itself to the html controls, you get with basic jsf basically the same
set of components and to some degree functionality as with basic Struts.
But one of the points of JSF is the component packs, and I think it
should be more propagized that if you want to use JSF, also look for
components, otherwise you will be in for a dissapointment.
ADF as well as Tomahawk and others already are very extensive in their
user interface coverage, and things become better every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org