[jsr-314-open] AJAX library in JSF 2.0

[Jim Driscoll]

Last comment, this not including Ryan:

On 9/12/09 10:25 PM, Dan Allen wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Ryan de Laplante* <ryan at ijws.com <mailto:ryan at ijws.com>>
> I read about the new RichFaces 4.0 being built for JSF 2.0 here:
>
> http://www.jroller.com/a4j/entry/richfaces_4_0_0_alpha1
>
> They are still using AJAX4JSF instead of JSF 2.0's built-in AJAX library
> because:
>
>     JSF 2 Ajax implementation still very limited and not contains our
>     autoupdatable zones, limitations for autoupdate, statuses, table
>     partial updates, server side processing options and so on. Queue in
>     JSF not configurable at all..
>
>     Some of these points could be solved at application level by using
>     some event's handling for example. But for some features - you will
>     even not have a point to attach the functionality to. If the
>     features that we provides with our ajax enchancements was
>     implemented in JSF - we would not started reimplementing the weel
>     for sure ;)

Table partial updates work AFAIK, thanks in large part to a bugfix 
submission by ICEFaces (thanks guys).  If they fail, it's a bug, and 
needs to be reported - I can promise it'll be quickly fixed if at all 
possible.

There's a queue in JSF 2 client, but it's a single FIFO stack.  There's 
good reasons not to like this (performance being the main one), but 
other queue proposals (including the one by Alexander) had the major 
disadvantage of leading to a non-deterministic call order, as well as 
saturation of client connection resources - both of which would have 
resulted in bugs that were almost impossible to catch by the end user, 
as well as complicating the job of writing a comet overlay tremendously.

A real queuing system, as well as request aggregation of any kind, will 
simply have to wait until we sort out how we want to handle Comet in JSF 
in a compatible way - which is, I hope, on the agenda for 2.1.

Statuses were already commented on by Werner and I in a different part 
of the thread.

As for auto-updating, perhaps that was part of the discussion before I 
joined - but I wasn't a part of those discussions.  Since I don't know 
what they'd entail exactly, I can't comment on them.

Jim