You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@myfaces.apache.org by Anton Gavazuk <an...@gmail.com> on 2008/01/04 18:14:33 UTC
Re: Facelet Question
I have project based on JSF 1.1 (MyFaces), Tiles and Tomahawk (1.1.5)
I think about migration to JSF 1.2 and adding some new features and
somehow to move my layouts subsystem to another system.
How you consider - Facelets + MYFaces 1.2.1 would be worth in this case?
2007/12/7, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>:
> And IntelliJ 7
>
> On 07/12/2007, Luka Surija <lu...@iytim.hr> wrote:
> > Kito D. Mann wrote:
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: mwessendorf@gmail.com [mailto:mwessendorf@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > >> Matthias Wessendorf
> > >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:01 PM
> > >> To: MyFaces Discussion
> > >> Subject: Re: Facelet Question
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On a related note, the JBoss plugins for Eclipse now provide
> > >>> autocomplete etc for Facelets pages..thanks JBoss!
> > >>>
> > >> I think the Eclipse folks are working on that as well!
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yeah, and this has been a part of Exadel Studio (which is being integrated
> > > into JBossTools) for a while.
> > >
> > Netbeans 5.5.x and 6.0 too.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Simon
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Matthias Wessendorf
> > >>
> > >> further stuff:
> > >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > >> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Facelet Question
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
The layout in Facelets is similar (if you got your last comment right)
foo.xhtml:
<ui:composition xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:ui="http://java.sun.com/jsf/facelets"
...
template="WEB-INF/masterLayout.xhtml">
<ui:define name="menu">
blah... this overrides the menu...
</ui:define>
<ui:define name="masterContent">
blah... this overrides the main content...
</ui:define>
</ui:composition>
So... the foo.xhtml is just a simple "layout client".
-M
On Jan 4, 2008 9:31 PM, Anton Gavazuk <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm,
> good idea about comparison... I will try.
> But what I don't like in tiles - separate config, in Stripes (
> action-based framework) you just define layout in one JSP and in any
> particular page just substitute some components in base layout - as
> for me very good approach, you don't have to support many config
> files.
>
> It seems that you prefer JSF 1.2 to Facelets, am I wrong?
>
>
> 2008/1/4, simon <si...@chello.at>:
> > Layouts? You mean the composition stuff?
> >
> > I think it is very nice. It is also much like Tiles. And as you note
> > below, you are already using tiles with JSF. I believe that recent
> > additions to tomahawk improve tiles support in JSF even further.
> >
> > Note that I haven't used tiles+jsf together myself. I'd be happy to hear
> > about pros/cons of this with respect to facelets compositions.
> >
> > Regards, Simon
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 20:23 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote:
> > > Simon,
> > > what you know and think about layouts in Facelets?
> > >
> > > 2008/1/4, simon <si...@chello.at>:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 19:14 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote:
> > > > > I have project based on JSF 1.1 (MyFaces), Tiles and Tomahawk (1.1.5)
> > > > > I think about migration to JSF 1.2 and adding some new features and
> > > > > somehow to move my layouts subsystem to another system.
> > > > > How you consider - Facelets + MYFaces 1.2.1 would be worth in this case?
> > > >
> > > > JSF1.2 is definitely better than JSF1.1.
> > > >
> > > > When using JSF1.1, Facelets is *much* better than JSP.
> > > >
> > > > When using JSF1,2, JSP and Facelets are pretty much equal IMO. Facelets
> > > > does give better error messages but the support for JSP is more mature
> > > > in IDEs (as the earlier messages in this thread show).
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Facelet Question
Posted by simon <si...@chello.at>.
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 22:31 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote:
> Hmm,
> good idea about comparison... I will try.
> But what I don't like in tiles - separate config, in Stripes (
> action-based framework) you just define layout in one JSP and in any
> particular page just substitute some components in base layout - as
> for me very good approach, you don't have to support many config
> files.
>
> It seems that you prefer JSF 1.2 to Facelets, am I wrong?
No, I think that Facelets is fine. The main project I work on uses
Facelets, and I'm perfectly happy with it.
I guess I'm just a little put off by what seems to me to be over-hype of
Facelets sometimes. It was *far* better than JSF1.1+JSP, but doesn't
seem to me to hold a great edge over JSF1.2+JSP.
The pain of getting Facelets auto-complete working with Eclipse put me
off a bit, but that will get better over time. Getting the taglibs set
up for JSF extension libraries can be awkward if the lib doesn't
natively support Facelets (eg MyFaces Tomahawk). And having dived into
the Facelets code, the complete lack of comments (and apparent
community) is not encouraging.
But Facelets does work well. The templating is elegant (though not
terribly original). Not having an ugly code-generation step (jsp->java)
is nice.
It seems to me that people now have two reasonably good choices; neither
is perfect but neither is bad.
Regards,
Simon
Re: Facelet Question
Posted by Anton Gavazuk <an...@gmail.com>.
Hmm,
good idea about comparison... I will try.
But what I don't like in tiles - separate config, in Stripes (
action-based framework) you just define layout in one JSP and in any
particular page just substitute some components in base layout - as
for me very good approach, you don't have to support many config
files.
It seems that you prefer JSF 1.2 to Facelets, am I wrong?
2008/1/4, simon <si...@chello.at>:
> Layouts? You mean the composition stuff?
>
> I think it is very nice. It is also much like Tiles. And as you note
> below, you are already using tiles with JSF. I believe that recent
> additions to tomahawk improve tiles support in JSF even further.
>
> Note that I haven't used tiles+jsf together myself. I'd be happy to hear
> about pros/cons of this with respect to facelets compositions.
>
> Regards, Simon
>
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 20:23 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote:
> > Simon,
> > what you know and think about layouts in Facelets?
> >
> > 2008/1/4, simon <si...@chello.at>:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 19:14 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote:
> > > > I have project based on JSF 1.1 (MyFaces), Tiles and Tomahawk (1.1.5)
> > > > I think about migration to JSF 1.2 and adding some new features and
> > > > somehow to move my layouts subsystem to another system.
> > > > How you consider - Facelets + MYFaces 1.2.1 would be worth in this case?
> > >
> > > JSF1.2 is definitely better than JSF1.1.
> > >
> > > When using JSF1.1, Facelets is *much* better than JSP.
> > >
> > > When using JSF1,2, JSP and Facelets are pretty much equal IMO. Facelets
> > > does give better error messages but the support for JSP is more mature
> > > in IDEs (as the earlier messages in this thread show).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > >
>
>
Re: Facelet Question
Posted by simon <si...@chello.at>.
Layouts? You mean the composition stuff?
I think it is very nice. It is also much like Tiles. And as you note
below, you are already using tiles with JSF. I believe that recent
additions to tomahawk improve tiles support in JSF even further.
Note that I haven't used tiles+jsf together myself. I'd be happy to hear
about pros/cons of this with respect to facelets compositions.
Regards, Simon
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 20:23 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote:
> Simon,
> what you know and think about layouts in Facelets?
>
> 2008/1/4, simon <si...@chello.at>:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 19:14 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote:
> > > I have project based on JSF 1.1 (MyFaces), Tiles and Tomahawk (1.1.5)
> > > I think about migration to JSF 1.2 and adding some new features and
> > > somehow to move my layouts subsystem to another system.
> > > How you consider - Facelets + MYFaces 1.2.1 would be worth in this case?
> >
> > JSF1.2 is definitely better than JSF1.1.
> >
> > When using JSF1.1, Facelets is *much* better than JSP.
> >
> > When using JSF1,2, JSP and Facelets are pretty much equal IMO. Facelets
> > does give better error messages but the support for JSP is more mature
> > in IDEs (as the earlier messages in this thread show).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
Re: Facelet Question
Posted by Anton Gavazuk <an...@gmail.com>.
Simon,
what you know and think about layouts in Facelets?
2008/1/4, simon <si...@chello.at>:
>
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 19:14 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote:
> > I have project based on JSF 1.1 (MyFaces), Tiles and Tomahawk (1.1.5)
> > I think about migration to JSF 1.2 and adding some new features and
> > somehow to move my layouts subsystem to another system.
> > How you consider - Facelets + MYFaces 1.2.1 would be worth in this case?
>
> JSF1.2 is definitely better than JSF1.1.
>
> When using JSF1.1, Facelets is *much* better than JSP.
>
> When using JSF1,2, JSP and Facelets are pretty much equal IMO. Facelets
> does give better error messages but the support for JSP is more mature
> in IDEs (as the earlier messages in this thread show).
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
>
>
Re: Facelet Question
Posted by simon <si...@chello.at>.
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 19:14 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote:
> I have project based on JSF 1.1 (MyFaces), Tiles and Tomahawk (1.1.5)
> I think about migration to JSF 1.2 and adding some new features and
> somehow to move my layouts subsystem to another system.
> How you consider - Facelets + MYFaces 1.2.1 would be worth in this case?
JSF1.2 is definitely better than JSF1.1.
When using JSF1.1, Facelets is *much* better than JSP.
When using JSF1,2, JSP and Facelets are pretty much equal IMO. Facelets
does give better error messages but the support for JSP is more mature
in IDEs (as the earlier messages in this thread show).
Regards,
Simon