[jsr-314-open] [jsf2next] might as well face it, Facelets is XML

[David Geary]

2009/12/13 Martin Marinschek <mmarinschek at apache.org>

> 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
>
>
>
> > -Dan
> >
> > --
> > Dan Allen
> > Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> > Registered Linux User #231597
> >
> > http://mojavelinux.com
> > http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> > http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20091213/1c84857c/attachment.html