[jsr-314-open] [jsf2.next] <h:head> vs. <head>

Tue Dec 15 11:43:45 EST 2009

On 12/15/09 10:30 AM, Andy Schwartz wrote:
> I've been wondering whether the requirement to use <h:head> instead of 
> plain old <head> (eg. in order to pick up the jsf.js when using 
> <f:ajax>) might be an annoyance for folks who prefer the 
> .xhtml/template text approach of view definition.  If this is 
> annoying, we could consider removing this requirement, eg. might be 
> able to transparently turn HTML <head>/<body> into the corresponding 
> components.  However, I don't have a good feeling for whether this 
> issue is significant...  It is not an issue for my use cases since we 
> tend to stick to higher-level component abstractions rather than 
> template text, but while we are on the topic of components vs. 
> template text it seemed like a good time to raise this question.
I've not heard anyone complain about, but someone like Kito or David who 
do a lot of training might have a better feel for the response to that.  
In these case, I can see a real value-add, as they make something else 
(resource relocation) much easier, so I don't mind them.  It seems that 
scanning the template for <head> might be an expensive and error-prone 
process, but I guess that delves into implementation issues.

-- 
Jason Lee, SCJP
President, Oklahoma City Java Users Group
Senior Java Developer, Sun Microsystems
http://blogs.steeplesoft.com