Hi Dan,
> I think he might have just been too lazy (or bored) to rip it out. The
> pass-through is a different argument from jsfc. I think jsfc is completely
> and utterly useless. I see no value in it. I do see the value in the
> pass-through for quick stuff. But even then, all that is being passed
> through is the xml and doctype declaration, and the CDATA, all which happen
> to be causing us issues with IE. (Remember, I'm not objecting to passing raw
> HTML tags straight through, that is why Facelets is so successful. I'm
> talking more about the document wrappers).
no, I don't think so. Tapestry is built completely around this idea,
so there is definitely people out there who think there is some value
in this - not that I personally think it makes sense if you start
using more sophisticated components. For the simple components, it has
some merits for a fairly large user-base (which is not the JSF
community).
Right. And it's not just sophisticated components. Once you start using templates, compositions, and decorators--which any non-trivial JSF 2 project should use for extensibility, flexibility, and maintainability--you leave graphic designers out in the cold, and jsfc becomes worthless.
I've taught Facelets for years, and when I show the jsfc feature, people initially think it's really cool. But then, inevitably, the questions come about what to do if you want a data table, or if you want to use compositions. Then it becomes apparent that jsfc is only useful for simple demos.
That said, I would much rather have a nice IDE supported WYSIWYG
feature that works for all the component sets than this preview
support.
In any case, disabling this is not necessary for what you have in mind
- and I definitely support your suggestion. Just saying that we should
still leave the other option open as well, and we will need to do it
for backwards compatibility anyways.
Okay, I buy the backward compatibility argument because we should be backward compatible with open-source Facelets, but I think in practice continuing to support jsfc (or getting rid of it) will have no meaningful consequences at all.
btw, am I missing something, or is jsfc nowhere to be found in the spec or the javadocs? I just did a search in the spec and came up empty, and I don't recall any mention of it at all in the PDL docs. If it's nowhere to be found, either in the spec or PDL docs, IMO, it's not officially part of JSF 2 anyway, but I digress.
david
regards,
Martin
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces