Hi Ed, well, well - he basically counters JSF´s abstraction from HTML, which doesn´t make sense with the history in mind (in 2003 things didn´t look so HTMLish in the web-world, a lot of possible options for future development were there this is (I believe) why JSF was built the way it was built). As of now, HTML seems to be set as the one and only future in the webspace. So, he is somewhat right with this. However, I don´t think the abstraction adds a lot of "paperwork" for anyone in the real world using JSF 2.0, he is not right about this point. I don´t understand his rant against the lifecycle - I do think we need this lifecycle, and if I would rebuild a web-framework from ground, I would include the same (or a similar) lifecycle again. It doesn´t make sense to do all this conversion and validation stuff in the application space. His rant against names is totally incomprehensible - what does he mean by that? The stuff which is still lacking from JSF, which he partially mentions: - back button support - double click handling - pretty URLs we should definitely address that at some point of time. And: something he mentions I also think is not really good is the "global" managed bean scope. It would be good to have a way to let managed beans live only in a reduced, page (or conversation) visible scope. But, generally: You cannot live without being loved and being hated by at least someone, I guess... best regards, Martin On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Ed Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com&gt; wrote: > http://facemetal.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/jsf/ > > I'm reading it now. > > To see more negative JSF articles, check out this delicious link. > > http://delicious.com/edburns/jsf-opinion-negative > > Ed > > -- > | edburns(a)oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017 > | homepage:          | http://ridingthecrest.com/ > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces