You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> on 2009/05/27 09:21:46 UTC
[MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Hi,
sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom) components,
would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
a JSF 2.0 set
of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
component (via Facelets).
I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
wrapper for some JS lib,
e.g. jQuery.
-Matthias
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Bruno Aranda schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> It sounds like a good idea to me. Tomahawk has been always one of the
> main reasons of people using MyFaces. I would say that having such a
> sandbox can be the start or a much modern Tomahawk for the future.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruno
>
> 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>>
>> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom) components,
>> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
>> a JSF 2.0 set
>> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>>
>> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>> component (via Facelets).
>> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
>> wrapper for some JS lib,
>> e.g. jQuery.
>>
Actually I have been writing such a libary for the last year for dojo
but the code is still jsf 1.1 and non facelets
(facelets is supported)
As far as I know Ganesh already has a dojo wrapper for facelets, which
we could use as starting point for our facelet only library!
Werner
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It sounds like a good idea to me. Tomahawk has been always one of the
> main reasons of people using MyFaces. I would say that having such a
> sandbox can be the start or a much modern Tomahawk for the future.
+1 eventually we should pick a different name;
main focus could be adding "easy components" (aka wrapper for
fancy JS libraries) + other stuff (e.g. some 2.0 successors of Tomahawk)
-M
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruno
>
> 2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>>
>> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom) components,
>> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
>> a JSF 2.0 set
>> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>>
>> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>> component (via Facelets).
>> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
>> wrapper for some JS lib,
>> e.g. jQuery.
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
It sounds like a good idea to me. Tomahawk has been always one of the
main reasons of people using MyFaces. I would say that having such a
sandbox can be the start or a much modern Tomahawk for the future.
Cheers,
Bruno
2009/5/27 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>:
> Hi,
>
> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>
> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom) components,
> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
> a JSF 2.0 set
> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>
> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
> component (via Facelets).
> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
> wrapper for some JS lib,
> e.g. jQuery.
>
> -Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Alexander Bell <Al...@j4fry.org>.
Hi,
the dojo license have to be appropriate because it is already in tomahawk
;-)
I don't like the concept of the plugins from JQuery as mentioned above (from
ganesh).
I wouldn't use ExtJS as well (it has got the smack of commercial software
;-))
Alex
2009/5/27 Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>
> IMHO, Dojo, Prototype.js, JQuery and most other "big" JS libraries are
> more or less the same.
>
> Dojo was very bloated in the past, but the Dojo team have cleaned a
> lot, which makes it a quite lean and mean library atm.
> I've always been a Prototype.js fan because the programming model
> looks the most like Java (objects vs. functions).
> I'm using JQuery on my current project and I must say, I like it. It
> offers a really productive API, but it's a quite difficult library for
> beginners, because it relies heavily on function chaining, closures,
> etc. Prototye.js code is often longer, but also more readable.
>
> But because Prototype.js is also moving towards a more "oneliner API"
> and Dojo is getting leaner, I would say, let the license decide.
>
> JQuery: MIT + GPL. Don't know if MIT can be used?
> Prototype.js: Also MIT
> Dojo: BSD + Academic Free License
>
> I've checked out some other libraries (YUI, Sajax...) and it looks
> like BSD is a much used licensing model amongst JS libraries...
> I wouldn't use ExtJS because of the reasons stated by Ganesh.
>
> If MIT is compatible with Apache, I would use JQuery, otherwise, if
> BSD or Academic Free License is compatible with Apache, use Dojo,
> otherwise we need to look for another JS library which has a good
> license...
>
> My 2 cents,
> /JK
>
>
> 2009/5/27 Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>:
> > Yes, I looked at this library for GWT work a couple weeks ago. It's
> > compatible in theory, but not in practice.
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> >> AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
> >> commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they
> use
> >> OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they don't
> have
> >> the OS spirit.
> >
>
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
Alexander Bell
J4Fry OpenSource Community
Internet: http://www.j4fry.org
E-Mail: Alexander.Bell@j4fry.org
Webprofil: http://www.j4fry.org/alexanderbell.shtml
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>.
IMHO, Dojo, Prototype.js, JQuery and most other "big" JS libraries are
more or less the same.
Dojo was very bloated in the past, but the Dojo team have cleaned a
lot, which makes it a quite lean and mean library atm.
I've always been a Prototype.js fan because the programming model
looks the most like Java (objects vs. functions).
I'm using JQuery on my current project and I must say, I like it. It
offers a really productive API, but it's a quite difficult library for
beginners, because it relies heavily on function chaining, closures,
etc. Prototye.js code is often longer, but also more readable.
But because Prototype.js is also moving towards a more "oneliner API"
and Dojo is getting leaner, I would say, let the license decide.
JQuery: MIT + GPL. Don't know if MIT can be used?
Prototype.js: Also MIT
Dojo: BSD + Academic Free License
I've checked out some other libraries (YUI, Sajax...) and it looks
like BSD is a much used licensing model amongst JS libraries...
I wouldn't use ExtJS because of the reasons stated by Ganesh.
If MIT is compatible with Apache, I would use JQuery, otherwise, if
BSD or Academic Free License is compatible with Apache, use Dojo,
otherwise we need to look for another JS library which has a good
license...
My 2 cents,
/JK
2009/5/27 Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>:
> Yes, I looked at this library for GWT work a couple weeks ago. It's
> compatible in theory, but not in practice.
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
>> AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
>> commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they use
>> OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they don't have
>> the OS spirit.
>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I looked at this library for GWT work a couple weeks ago. It's
compatible in theory, but not in practice.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
> commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they use
> OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they don't have
> the OS spirit.
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
> commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they use
> OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they don't have
> the OS spirit.
I agree. Also, I am sure we can't use it here, as our base.
And I tend to not support the model you mentioned.
-M
>
> Cagatay Civici schrieb:
>>
>> Afaik gpl3 is compatible with apache v2?
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I think the ExtJS has a GPL-style license, right ?
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Cagatay Civici
>> <cagatay.civici@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say
>> flaws are
>> > fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :)
>> Dojo is
>> > like ejb2 to me. I'd consider ExtJS as well instead of dojo.
>> Maybe it's a
>> > better match of widgets compared to jquery ui.
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org
>> <ma...@j4fry.org>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Cagatay,
>> >>
>> >> Can we try to find arguments in favour of possible javascript
>> libraries?
>> >> Why do you prefer jQuery? The tomahawk dependency is on dojo
>> 0.4, current is
>> >> 1.3.1, you just cannot compare them. jQuery plugins aren't part
>> of the main
>> >> jQuery project, so maintenance may be not guaranteed on the
>> long term. For
>> >> example the dojo dataGrid is still in dojox because it has
>> minor issues, but
>> >> it still is superior to all "stable" jQuery table plugins (e.g.
>> flexgrid)
>> >> I've seen. On the other hand the main jQuery project lacks
>> basic widgets
>> >> (combo/select, input, table, ...). Also dojo has a
>> comprehesive validation
>> >> concept over all its widgets which isn't possible with the
>> widespread jQuery
>> >> plugins.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Ganesh
>> >>
>> >> Cagatay Civici schrieb:
>> >>>
>> >>> Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency.
>> >>>
>> >>> For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery
>> plugins
>> >>> instead of dojo.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
>> <matzew@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> >>> <mailto:matzew@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth
>> to go the
>> >>> Facelets road, for new things.
>> >>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only
>> template-based
>> >>> components; old-fashion
>> >>> renderers are still, ok...
>> >>>
>> >>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something
>> like that ?
>> >>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a
>> >>> wrapper for
>> >>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>> >>>
>> >>> -M
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org
>> <ma...@j4fry.org>
>> >>> <mailto:ganesh@j4fry.org <ma...@j4fry.org>>> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi Matthias,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released
>> the J4Fry
>> >>> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF
>> >>> template/dojo library,
>> >>> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0
>> >>> out of the
>> >>> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first
>> >>> project based
>> >>> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a
>> >>> european bank.
>> >>> > We've started working on this last autumn after I
>> released this
>> >>> artivle in
>> >>> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag
>> >>> libraries must be
>> >>> > template based:
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
>> >>> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to
>> make
>> >>> them a
>> >>> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Here's a link to the documentation:
>> >>> http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
>> >>> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0
>> example is
>> >>> currently
>> >>> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Best regards,
>> >>> > Ganesh
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Hi,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share
>> an idea...
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create
>> >>> (custom)
>> >>> >> components,
>> >>> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project
>> that
>> >>> defines
>> >>> >> a JSF 2.0 set
>> >>> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a
>> "wow" *easy*
>> >>> >> component (via Facelets).
>> >>> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that
>> provides a
>> >>> kinda
>> >>> >> wrapper for some JS lib,
>> >>> >> e.g. jQuery.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> -Matthias
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Matthias Wessendorf
>> >>>
>> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>.
AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd
commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they
use OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they
don't have the OS spirit.
Cagatay Civici schrieb:
> Afaik gpl3 is compatible with apache v2?
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
> <matzew@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> I think the ExtJS has a GPL-style license, right ?
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Cagatay Civici
> <cagatay.civici@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say
> flaws are
> > fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :)
> Dojo is
> > like ejb2 to me. I'd consider ExtJS as well instead of dojo.
> Maybe it's a
> > better match of widgets compared to jquery ui.
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org
> <ma...@j4fry.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Cagatay,
> >>
> >> Can we try to find arguments in favour of possible javascript
> libraries?
> >> Why do you prefer jQuery? The tomahawk dependency is on dojo
> 0.4, current is
> >> 1.3.1, you just cannot compare them. jQuery plugins aren't part
> of the main
> >> jQuery project, so maintenance may be not guaranteed on the
> long term. For
> >> example the dojo dataGrid is still in dojox because it has
> minor issues, but
> >> it still is superior to all "stable" jQuery table plugins (e.g.
> flexgrid)
> >> I've seen. On the other hand the main jQuery project lacks
> basic widgets
> >> (combo/select, input, table, ...). Also dojo has a
> comprehesive validation
> >> concept over all its widgets which isn't possible with the
> widespread jQuery
> >> plugins.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Ganesh
> >>
> >> Cagatay Civici schrieb:
> >>>
> >>> Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency.
> >>>
> >>> For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery
> plugins
> >>> instead of dojo.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
> <matzew@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> >>> <mailto:matzew@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth
> to go the
> >>> Facelets road, for new things.
> >>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only
> template-based
> >>> components; old-fashion
> >>> renderers are still, ok...
> >>>
> >>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something
> like that ?
> >>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a
> >>> wrapper for
> >>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
> >>>
> >>> -M
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org
> <ma...@j4fry.org>
> >>> <mailto:ganesh@j4fry.org <ma...@j4fry.org>>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi Matthias,
> >>> >
> >>> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released
> the J4Fry
> >>> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF
> >>> template/dojo library,
> >>> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0
> >>> out of the
> >>> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first
> >>> project based
> >>> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a
> >>> european bank.
> >>> > We've started working on this last autumn after I
> released this
> >>> artivle in
> >>> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag
> >>> libraries must be
> >>> > template based:
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
> >>> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to
> make
> >>> them a
> >>> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
> >>> >
> >>> > Here's a link to the documentation:
> >>> http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
> >>> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0
> example is
> >>> currently
> >>> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
> >>> >
> >>> > Best regards,
> >>> > Ganesh
> >>> >
> >>> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share
> an idea...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create
> >>> (custom)
> >>> >> components,
> >>> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project
> that
> >>> defines
> >>> >> a JSF 2.0 set
> >>> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a
> "wow" *easy*
> >>> >> component (via Facelets).
> >>> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that
> provides a
> >>> kinda
> >>> >> wrapper for some JS lib,
> >>> >> e.g. jQuery.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -Matthias
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Matthias Wessendorf
> >>>
> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Cagatay Civici
<ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Afaik gpl3 is compatible with apache v2?
I think that you can't extend it to offer asl based enhancements.
-M
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> I think the ExtJS has a GPL-style license, right ?
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Cagatay Civici
>> <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say flaws are
>> > fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :) Dojo is
>> > like ejb2 to me. I'd consider ExtJS as well instead of dojo. Maybe it's
>> > a
>> > better match of widgets compared to jquery ui.
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Cagatay,
>> >>
>> >> Can we try to find arguments in favour of possible javascript
>> >> libraries?
>> >> Why do you prefer jQuery? The tomahawk dependency is on dojo 0.4,
>> >> current is
>> >> 1.3.1, you just cannot compare them. jQuery plugins aren't part of the
>> >> main
>> >> jQuery project, so maintenance may be not guaranteed on the long term.
>> >> For
>> >> example the dojo dataGrid is still in dojox because it has minor
>> >> issues, but
>> >> it still is superior to all "stable" jQuery table plugins (e.g.
>> >> flexgrid)
>> >> I've seen. On the other hand the main jQuery project lacks basic
>> >> widgets
>> >> (combo/select, input, table, ...). Also dojo has a comprehesive
>> >> validation
>> >> concept over all its widgets which isn't possible with the widespread
>> >> jQuery
>> >> plugins.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Ganesh
>> >>
>> >> Cagatay Civici schrieb:
>> >>>
>> >>> Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency.
>> >>>
>> >>> For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery plugins
>> >>> instead of dojo.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
>> >>> <matzew@apache.org
>> >>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go
>> >>> the
>> >>> Facelets road, for new things.
>> >>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
>> >>> components; old-fashion
>> >>> renderers are still, ok...
>> >>>
>> >>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that
>> >>> ?
>> >>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a
>> >>> wrapper for
>> >>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>> >>>
>> >>> -M
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org
>> >>> <ma...@j4fry.org>> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi Matthias,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the
>> >>> J4Fry
>> >>> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF
>> >>> template/dojo library,
>> >>> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0
>> >>> out of the
>> >>> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first
>> >>> project based
>> >>> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a
>> >>> european bank.
>> >>> > We've started working on this last autumn after I released this
>> >>> artivle in
>> >>> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag
>> >>> libraries must be
>> >>> > template based:
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
>> >>> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make
>> >>> them a
>> >>> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Here's a link to the documentation:
>> >>> http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
>> >>> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is
>> >>> currently
>> >>> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Best regards,
>> >>> > Ganesh
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Hi,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an
>> >>> idea...
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create
>> >>> (custom)
>> >>> >> components,
>> >>> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that
>> >>> defines
>> >>> >> a JSF 2.0 set
>> >>> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>> >>> >> component (via Facelets).
>> >>> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a
>> >>> kinda
>> >>> >> wrapper for some JS lib,
>> >>> >> e.g. jQuery.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> -Matthias
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Matthias Wessendorf
>> >>>
>> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>.
Afaik gpl3 is compatible with apache v2?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>wrote:
> I think the ExtJS has a GPL-style license, right ?
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Cagatay Civici
> <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say flaws are
> > fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :) Dojo is
> > like ejb2 to me. I'd consider ExtJS as well instead of dojo. Maybe it's a
> > better match of widgets compared to jquery ui.
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Cagatay,
> >>
> >> Can we try to find arguments in favour of possible javascript libraries?
> >> Why do you prefer jQuery? The tomahawk dependency is on dojo 0.4,
> current is
> >> 1.3.1, you just cannot compare them. jQuery plugins aren't part of the
> main
> >> jQuery project, so maintenance may be not guaranteed on the long term.
> For
> >> example the dojo dataGrid is still in dojox because it has minor issues,
> but
> >> it still is superior to all "stable" jQuery table plugins (e.g.
> flexgrid)
> >> I've seen. On the other hand the main jQuery project lacks basic widgets
> >> (combo/select, input, table, ...). Also dojo has a comprehesive
> validation
> >> concept over all its widgets which isn't possible with the widespread
> jQuery
> >> plugins.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Ganesh
> >>
> >> Cagatay Civici schrieb:
> >>>
> >>> Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency.
> >>>
> >>> For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery plugins
> >>> instead of dojo.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <
> matzew@apache.org
> >>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
> >>> Facelets road, for new things.
> >>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
> >>> components; old-fashion
> >>> renderers are still, ok...
> >>>
> >>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that
> ?
> >>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a
> >>> wrapper for
> >>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
> >>>
> >>> -M
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org
> >>> <ma...@j4fry.org>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi Matthias,
> >>> >
> >>> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
> >>> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF
> >>> template/dojo library,
> >>> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0
> >>> out of the
> >>> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first
> >>> project based
> >>> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a
> >>> european bank.
> >>> > We've started working on this last autumn after I released this
> >>> artivle in
> >>> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag
> >>> libraries must be
> >>> > template based:
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf
> .
> >>> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make
> >>> them a
> >>> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
> >>> >
> >>> > Here's a link to the documentation:
> >>> http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
> >>> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is
> >>> currently
> >>> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
> >>> >
> >>> > Best regards,
> >>> > Ganesh
> >>> >
> >>> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create
> >>> (custom)
> >>> >> components,
> >>> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that
> >>> defines
> >>> >> a JSF 2.0 set
> >>> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
> >>> >> component (via Facelets).
> >>> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a
> >>> kinda
> >>> >> wrapper for some JS lib,
> >>> >> e.g. jQuery.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -Matthias
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Matthias Wessendorf
> >>>
> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
I think the ExtJS has a GPL-style license, right ?
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Cagatay Civici
<ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say flaws are
> fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :) Dojo is
> like ejb2 to me. I'd consider ExtJS as well instead of dojo. Maybe it's a
> better match of widgets compared to jquery ui.
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Cagatay,
>>
>> Can we try to find arguments in favour of possible javascript libraries?
>> Why do you prefer jQuery? The tomahawk dependency is on dojo 0.4, current is
>> 1.3.1, you just cannot compare them. jQuery plugins aren't part of the main
>> jQuery project, so maintenance may be not guaranteed on the long term. For
>> example the dojo dataGrid is still in dojox because it has minor issues, but
>> it still is superior to all "stable" jQuery table plugins (e.g. flexgrid)
>> I've seen. On the other hand the main jQuery project lacks basic widgets
>> (combo/select, input, table, ...). Also dojo has a comprehesive validation
>> concept over all its widgets which isn't possible with the widespread jQuery
>> plugins.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ganesh
>>
>> Cagatay Civici schrieb:
>>>
>>> Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency.
>>>
>>> For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery plugins
>>> instead of dojo.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org
>>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
>>> Facelets road, for new things.
>>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
>>> components; old-fashion
>>> renderers are still, ok...
>>>
>>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
>>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a
>>> wrapper for
>>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>>>
>>> -M
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org
>>> <ma...@j4fry.org>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Matthias,
>>> >
>>> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
>>> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF
>>> template/dojo library,
>>> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0
>>> out of the
>>> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first
>>> project based
>>> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a
>>> european bank.
>>> > We've started working on this last autumn after I released this
>>> artivle in
>>> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag
>>> libraries must be
>>> > template based:
>>> >
>>>
>>> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
>>> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make
>>> them a
>>> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>>> >
>>> > Here's a link to the documentation:
>>> http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
>>> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is
>>> currently
>>> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> > Ganesh
>>> >
>>> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>>> >>
>>> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create
>>> (custom)
>>> >> components,
>>> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that
>>> defines
>>> >> a JSF 2.0 set
>>> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>>> >>
>>> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>>> >> component (via Facelets).
>>> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a
>>> kinda
>>> >> wrapper for some JS lib,
>>> >> e.g. jQuery.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Matthias
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>.
I had terrible experiences with dojo in the past, if you say flaws are
fixed, documentation is improved, then I'd be 0 instead of -1 :) Dojo is
like ejb2 to me. I'd consider ExtJS as well instead of dojo. Maybe it's a
better match of widgets compared to jquery ui.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> Hi Cagatay,
>
> Can we try to find arguments in favour of possible javascript libraries?
> Why do you prefer jQuery? The tomahawk dependency is on dojo 0.4, current is
> 1.3.1, you just cannot compare them. jQuery plugins aren't part of the main
> jQuery project, so maintenance may be not guaranteed on the long term. For
> example the dojo dataGrid is still in dojox because it has minor issues, but
> it still is superior to all "stable" jQuery table plugins (e.g. flexgrid)
> I've seen. On the other hand the main jQuery project lacks basic widgets
> (combo/select, input, table, ...). Also dojo has a comprehesive validation
> concept over all its widgets which isn't possible with the widespread jQuery
> plugins.
>
> Best regards,
> Ganesh
>
> Cagatay Civici schrieb:
>
>> Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency.
>>
>> For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery plugins
>> instead of dojo.
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org<mailto:
>> matzew@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
>> Facelets road, for new things.
>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
>> components; old-fashion
>> renderers are still, ok...
>>
>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a
>> wrapper for
>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>>
>> -M
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org
>> <ma...@j4fry.org>> wrote:
>> > Hi Matthias,
>> >
>> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
>> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF
>> template/dojo library,
>> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0
>> out of the
>> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first
>> project based
>> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a
>> european bank.
>> > We've started working on this last autumn after I released this
>> artivle in
>> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag
>> libraries must be
>> > template based:
>> >
>>
>> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf
>> .
>> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make
>> them a
>> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>> >
>> > Here's a link to the documentation:
>> http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
>> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is
>> currently
>> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Ganesh
>> >
>> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>> >>
>> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create
>> (custom)
>> >> components,
>> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that
>> defines
>> >> a JSF 2.0 set
>> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>> >>
>> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>> >> component (via Facelets).
>> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a
>> kinda
>> >> wrapper for some JS lib,
>> >> e.g. jQuery.
>> >>
>> >> -Matthias
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>>
>>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>.
Hi Cagatay,
Can we try to find arguments in favour of possible javascript libraries?
Why do you prefer jQuery? The tomahawk dependency is on dojo 0.4,
current is 1.3.1, you just cannot compare them. jQuery plugins aren't
part of the main jQuery project, so maintenance may be not guaranteed on
the long term. For example the dojo dataGrid is still in dojox because
it has minor issues, but it still is superior to all "stable" jQuery
table plugins (e.g. flexgrid) I've seen. On the other hand the main
jQuery project lacks basic widgets (combo/select, input, table, ...).
Also dojo has a comprehesive validation concept over all its widgets
which isn't possible with the widespread jQuery plugins.
Best regards,
Ganesh
Cagatay Civici schrieb:
> Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency.
>
> For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery plugins
> instead of dojo.
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
> <matzew@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
> Facelets road, for new things.
> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
> components; old-fashion
> renderers are still, ok...
>
> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a
> wrapper for
> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>
> -M
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org
> <ma...@j4fry.org>> wrote:
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF
> template/dojo library,
> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0
> out of the
> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first
> project based
> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a
> european bank.
> > We've started working on this last autumn after I released this
> artivle in
> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag
> libraries must be
> > template based:
> >
> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make
> them a
> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
> >
> > Here's a link to the documentation:
> http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is
> currently
> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ganesh
> >
> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
> >>
> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create
> (custom)
> >> components,
> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that
> defines
> >> a JSF 2.0 set
> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
> >>
> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
> >> component (via Facelets).
> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a
> kinda
> >> wrapper for some JS lib,
> >> e.g. jQuery.
> >>
> >> -Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>.
Tomahawk already has dojo a huge dependency.
For the new lib I'd favor using jquery UI plus stable jquery plugins instead
of dojo.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>wrote:
> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
> Facelets road, for new things.
> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
> components; old-fashion
> renderers are still, ok...
>
> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a wrapper for
> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>
> -M
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
> > dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF template/dojo
> library,
> > it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0 out of the
> > box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first project
> based
> > on the new components will be productive around juli in a european bank.
> > We've started working on this last autumn after I released this artivle
> in
> > german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag libraries must
> be
> > template based:
> >
> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf
> .
> > The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make them a
> > starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
> >
> > Here's a link to the documentation: http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
> > (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is currently
> > offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ganesh
> >
> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
> >>
> >> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom)
> >> components,
> >> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
> >> a JSF 2.0 set
> >> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
> >>
> >> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
> >> component (via Facelets).
> >> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
> >> wrapper for some JS lib,
> >> e.g. jQuery.
> >>
> >> -Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>.
Hi,
Yes, sure, we're happy to share it. It's already under the apache
license and the copyrights belong to Alex and me, so there is no
problem. What name do you have in mind? Once we have a name, we can set
up a svn subproject and I can check in our dojoFacelets.
For the multi-library apporach, there is one problem: Mixing libraries
will break the benefits of the dojo/jQuery provided themes - the widgets
wouldn't fit together. Maybe we build separate jars for each supportet
library?
If we separate libraries, the dojo part could maybe keep the name
"dojoFacelets", if we mix them, Alex proposed "richlets".
Best regards,
Ganesh
http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
> I'd like to see that we move in the bits. If he/Ganseh is OK with it...
> A simple software grant should be enough, no real incubation would
> be needed...
>
> Another reason to take this, is this lib is already developed under an
> OS development model! So all the changes are public and not on a
> single computer...
>
> -M
>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Actually here is the state of our current works on the component set:
>>
>> I have dojo covered currently in mine which still is undecided what to do
>> with it by about 80% on the dijit side. The big points missing in my own one
>> is the table and the tree. For the tree I have gathered the knowledge to
>> auto ajax it. Trinidad PPR is supported out of the box!
>>
>> But I am currently on JSF 1.1 api and want to keep it that way until I
>> really find time to upgrade it.
>> My current biggest problem is lack of time, since I have to work 80% of the
>> time in non myfaces related projects and the other 10-20% is reserved for
>> myfaces 2.0
>>
>>
>> Ganesh as far as I know has a pretty well working tag set which coveres dojo
>> even more than I do, he has the table and tree already working,
>> main difference is he is already on facelet while I tackle the problem on
>> the component side.
>> We could use the work of Ganesh as a starting point for a more extensive
>> component facelets set, but we have to move Ganeshs work in one way or the
>> other because it is already hosted outside on sourceforge AFAIR!
>
> I'd like to see that we move in the bits. If he/Ganseh is OK with it...
> A simple software grant should be enough, no real incubation would
> be needed...
>
> Another reason to take this, is this lib is already developed under an
> OS development model! So all the changes are public and not on a
> single computer...
>
Well the change history of mine exists as well just not public yet,
anyway I personally think Ganeshs taglib is the better starting point
since it is planned just to support faclets for it the taglib of Ganesh
is the better point than mine, since he basically has it already the way
we need it. While mine for facelets only probably would be overkill.
I have still plans to release mine one way or the other, but due to lack
of time it has stalled for now.
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually here is the state of our current works on the component set:
>
> I have dojo covered currently in mine which still is undecided what to do
> with it by about 80% on the dijit side. The big points missing in my own one
> is the table and the tree. For the tree I have gathered the knowledge to
> auto ajax it. Trinidad PPR is supported out of the box!
>
> But I am currently on JSF 1.1 api and want to keep it that way until I
> really find time to upgrade it.
> My current biggest problem is lack of time, since I have to work 80% of the
> time in non myfaces related projects and the other 10-20% is reserved for
> myfaces 2.0
>
>
> Ganesh as far as I know has a pretty well working tag set which coveres dojo
> even more than I do, he has the table and tree already working,
> main difference is he is already on facelet while I tackle the problem on
> the component side.
> We could use the work of Ganesh as a starting point for a more extensive
> component facelets set, but we have to move Ganeshs work in one way or the
> other because it is already hosted outside on sourceforge AFAIR!
I'd like to see that we move in the bits. If he/Ganseh is OK with it...
A simple software grant should be enough, no real incubation would
be needed...
Another reason to take this, is this lib is already developed under an
OS development model! So all the changes are public and not on a
single computer...
-M
>
> Outside of that there is the ominous rich client component set which Oracle
> wanted to opensource one day, Matthias knows more about it.
>
> That is the state of sets I am aware of we probably could use within the
> myfaces umbrella!
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural
>>> ones
>>> and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes I
>>> think
>>> it it is worth working on "something like that".
>>>
>>> IMHO we should first of all discuss the basis we want to work upon. Which
>>> are your reasons to prefer starting with jQuery instead of dojo? Here's
>>> my
>>> list of reasons why I chose dojo:
>>
>> I personally like the jQuery syntax and it has not that big
>> (dependency) overhead.
>> That said I don't mind to have multiple libs supported, under such a
>> "umbrella" Facelets-
>> based library "MyFaces FOO Dojo", "MyFaces FOO jQuery" ...
>>
>> -M
>>
>>> - better industry support
>>> - larger widget base
>>> - more of a hype right now (seems to me ...)
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ganesh
>>>
>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
>>>> Facelets road, for new things.
>>>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
>>>> components; old-fashion
>>>> renderers are still, ok...
>>>>
>>>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
>>>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a wrapper for
>>>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>>>>
>>>> -M
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
>>>>> dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF template/dojo
>>>>> library,
>>>>> it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0 out of
>>>>> the
>>>>> box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first project
>>>>> based
>>>>> on the new components will be productive around juli in a european
>>>>> bank.
>>>>> We've started working on this last autumn after I released this artivle
>>>>> in
>>>>> german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag libraries must
>>>>> be
>>>>> template based:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
>>>>> The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make them a
>>>>> starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a link to the documentation: http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
>>>>> (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is
>>>>> currently
>>>>> offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Ganesh
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom)
>>>>>> components,
>>>>>> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
>>>>>> a JSF 2.0 set
>>>>>> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>>>>>> component (via Facelets).
>>>>>> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
>>>>>> wrapper for some JS lib,
>>>>>> e.g. jQuery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Actually here is the state of our current works on the component set:
I have dojo covered currently in mine which still is undecided what to
do with it by about 80% on the dijit side. The big points missing in my
own one is the table and the tree. For the tree I have gathered the
knowledge to auto ajax it. Trinidad PPR is supported out of the box!
But I am currently on JSF 1.1 api and want to keep it that way until I
really find time to upgrade it.
My current biggest problem is lack of time, since I have to work 80% of
the time in non myfaces related projects and the other 10-20% is
reserved for myfaces 2.0
Ganesh as far as I know has a pretty well working tag set which coveres
dojo even more than I do, he has the table and tree already working,
main difference is he is already on facelet while I tackle the problem
on the component side.
We could use the work of Ganesh as a starting point for a more extensive
component facelets set, but we have to move Ganeshs work in one way or
the other because it is already hosted outside on sourceforge AFAIR!
Outside of that there is the ominous rich client component set which
Oracle wanted to opensource one day, Matthias knows more about it.
That is the state of sets I am aware of we probably could use within the
myfaces umbrella!
Werner
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural ones
>> and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes I think
>> it it is worth working on "something like that".
>>
>> IMHO we should first of all discuss the basis we want to work upon. Which
>> are your reasons to prefer starting with jQuery instead of dojo? Here's my
>> list of reasons why I chose dojo:
>
> I personally like the jQuery syntax and it has not that big
> (dependency) overhead.
> That said I don't mind to have multiple libs supported, under such a
> "umbrella" Facelets-
> based library "MyFaces FOO Dojo", "MyFaces FOO jQuery" ...
>
> -M
>
>> - better industry support
>> - larger widget base
>> - more of a hype right now (seems to me ...)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ganesh
>>
>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
>>> Facelets road, for new things.
>>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
>>> components; old-fashion
>>> renderers are still, ok...
>>>
>>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
>>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a wrapper for
>>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>>>
>>> -M
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>
>>>> Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
>>>> dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF template/dojo
>>>> library,
>>>> it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0 out of the
>>>> box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first project
>>>> based
>>>> on the new components will be productive around juli in a european bank.
>>>> We've started working on this last autumn after I released this artivle
>>>> in
>>>> german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag libraries must
>>>> be
>>>> template based:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
>>>> The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make them a
>>>> starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a link to the documentation: http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
>>>> (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is currently
>>>> offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Ganesh
>>>>
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>>>>>
>>>>> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom)
>>>>> components,
>>>>> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
>>>>> a JSF 2.0 set
>>>>> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>>>>> component (via Facelets).
>>>>> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
>>>>> wrapper for some JS lib,
>>>>> e.g. jQuery.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural ones
> and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes I think
> it it is worth working on "something like that".
>
> IMHO we should first of all discuss the basis we want to work upon. Which
> are your reasons to prefer starting with jQuery instead of dojo? Here's my
> list of reasons why I chose dojo:
I personally like the jQuery syntax and it has not that big
(dependency) overhead.
That said I don't mind to have multiple libs supported, under such a
"umbrella" Facelets-
based library "MyFaces FOO Dojo", "MyFaces FOO jQuery" ...
-M
>
> - better industry support
> - larger widget base
> - more of a hype right now (seems to me ...)
>
> Best regards,
> Ganesh
>
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>
>> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
>> Facelets road, for new things.
>> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
>> components; old-fashion
>> renderers are still, ok...
>>
>> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
>> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a wrapper for
>> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>>
>> -M
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
>>> Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
>>> dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF template/dojo
>>> library,
>>> it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0 out of the
>>> box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first project
>>> based
>>> on the new components will be productive around juli in a european bank.
>>> We've started working on this last autumn after I released this artivle
>>> in
>>> german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag libraries must
>>> be
>>> template based:
>>>
>>> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
>>> The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make them a
>>> starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>>>
>>> Here's a link to the documentation: http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
>>> (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is currently
>>> offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ganesh
>>>
>>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>>>>
>>>> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom)
>>>> components,
>>>> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
>>>> a JSF 2.0 set
>>>> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>>>>
>>>> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>>>> component (via Facelets).
>>>> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
>>>> wrapper for some JS lib,
>>>> e.g. jQuery.
>>>>
>>>> -Matthias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ganesh schrieb:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural
>> ones and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes I
>> think it it is worth working on "something like that".
>>
>> IMHO we should first of all discuss the basis we want to work upon. Which
>> are your reasons to prefer starting with jQuery instead of dojo? Here's my
>> list of reasons why I chose dojo:
>>
>> - better industry support
>> - larger widget base
>> - more of a hype right now (seems to me ...)
>>
> Actually the thing is following.
> We should not nail ourselves down to just one libary.
>
> Ganesh you have dojo pretty well covered für facelets only, why dont we
> use your lib as starting point and add other widget sets libraries.
>
> YUI comes to my mind!
> I personally think the future does not lie in one widget set dojo has severe
> bugs in the dijit departement which are hard to come by if you
> have no experience, we should broaden our scope.
>
> YUI is so close to dojo that we probably can support it as well, jQuery I do
> not know.
> Since we are on facelets things are way easier than with a standard
> component model!
+1 IMO facelets allows really quick/rapid development cycles ...
-M
>
>
>
> Werner
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
Ganesh schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural
> ones and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes
> I think it it is worth working on "something like that".
>
> IMHO we should first of all discuss the basis we want to work upon.
> Which are your reasons to prefer starting with jQuery instead of dojo?
> Here's my list of reasons why I chose dojo:
>
> - better industry support
> - larger widget base
> - more of a hype right now (seems to me ...)
>
Actually the thing is following.
We should not nail ourselves down to just one libary.
Ganesh you have dojo pretty well covered für facelets only, why dont we
use your lib as starting point and add other widget sets libraries.
YUI comes to my mind!
I personally think the future does not lie in one widget set dojo has
severe bugs in the dijit departement which are hard to come by if you
have no experience, we should broaden our scope.
YUI is so close to dojo that we probably can support it as well, jQuery
I do not know.
Since we are on facelets things are way easier than with a standard
component model!
Werner
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>.
Hi,
yes, sure, declarative languages have more limitations then procedural
ones and sometimes we must swich to the procedural backup and again yes
I think it it is worth working on "something like that".
IMHO we should first of all discuss the basis we want to work upon.
Which are your reasons to prefer starting with jQuery instead of dojo?
Here's my list of reasons why I chose dojo:
- better industry support
- larger widget base
- more of a hype right now (seems to me ...)
Best regards,
Ganesh
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
> Facelets road, for new things.
> Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
> components; old-fashion
> renderers are still, ok...
>
> so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
> I personally would like to start with this by introducing a wrapper for
> jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
>
> -M
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
>> dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF template/dojo library,
>> it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0 out of the
>> box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first project based
>> on the new components will be productive around juli in a european bank.
>> We've started working on this last autumn after I released this artivle in
>> german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag libraries must be
>> template based:
>> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
>> The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make them a
>> starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>>
>> Here's a link to the documentation: http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
>> (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is currently
>> offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ganesh
>>
>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>>>
>>> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom)
>>> components,
>>> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
>>> a JSF 2.0 set
>>> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>>>
>>> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>>> component (via Facelets).
>>> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
>>> wrapper for some JS lib,
>>> e.g. jQuery.
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
not sure I read that article, but I agree that it is worth to go the
Facelets road, for new things.
Not sure if EVERY 2.0 library needs to contain only template-based
components; old-fashion
renderers are still, ok...
so generally you also think it is worth to host something like that ?
I personally would like to start with this by introducing a wrapper for
jQuery (included via JSF 2.0 resource handling)
-M
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org> wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
> dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF template/dojo library,
> it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0 out of the
> box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first project based
> on the new components will be productive around juli in a european bank.
> We've started working on this last autumn after I released this artivle in
> german JavaMagazin, making the point that future JSF tag libraries must be
> template based:
> http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
> The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make them a
> starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
>
> Here's a link to the documentation: http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
> (with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is currently
> offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
>
> Best regards,
> Ganesh
>
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>>
>> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom)
>> components,
>> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
>> a JSF 2.0 set
>> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>>
>> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
>> component (via Facelets).
>> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
>> wrapper for some JS lib,
>> e.g. jQuery.
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [MyFaces 2.0] an experiment ?
Posted by Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>.
Hi Matthias,
Funny you're asking this today: Last night I've released the J4Fry
dojoFacelets library on sourceforge. It's a pure JSF template/dojo
library, it was build on JSF 1.1/1.2 w/Facelets and it runs on JSF 2.0
out of the box. The templates are AJAX enabled via ui:define. The first
project based on the new components will be productive around juli in a
european bank. We've started working on this last autumn after I
released this artivle in german JavaMagazin, making the point that
future JSF tag libraries must be template based:
http://www.j4fry.org/resources/jung_JSF_JavaMagazin_Tag_Entwicklung_mit_Facelets.pdf.
The dojoFacelets are apache licensed and we would love to make them a
starting point for a new MyFaces subproject.
Here's a link to the documentation: http://j4fry.org/dojoFacelets.shtml
(with links to examples and downloads - the JSF 2.0 example is currently
offline, check the JSF 1.2 example).
Best regards,
Ganesh
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> sure MyFaces 2.0 is not yet there, but I want to share an idea...
>
> Since JSF 2.0 has the new Facelets support to easily create (custom) components,
> would it be a good idea to start a new (sandbox) project that defines
> a JSF 2.0 set
> of components, only written via the Facelets way ?
>
> I had to play with some fancy JS (jQuery) to make a "wow" *easy*
> component (via Facelets).
> I think it would be cool to have such a library that provides a kinda
> wrapper for some JS lib,
> e.g. jQuery.
>
> -Matthias
>
>