On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 21:43:41 -0800, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a really interesting statement. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've
always thought the whole point of JSF was visual components. Yet the
statement above clearly indicates that JSF goes well beyond that
charter, and
Now that looks pretty cool!
It's fee-based, though, right?
Anyone taken a look at it?
cheers,
David
|-+
| | Craig McClanahan |
| | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | om |
| |
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0700, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:30:22 -0600, Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless Martin is incorrect about the way JSF handles requests, I'm inclined
to believe (despite the fact JSF will be a part of the next
I hear what you're saying, Craig. However, I still feel that JSF
doesn't buy me much when building highly dynamic apps. Some points to
consider:
* Since one of the goals of such apps is to minimise the number of
full page refreshes, relatively little of the app can be constructed
using tools such
Martin, you make an interesting comment that I think ties into this
discussion (loosely ;) ) that is worth mentioning...
A lot of the tools us architects and developers use these days really
only make sense in cases where you have a separation of activities in
terms of page authors and
I haven't found much need to utilize scriplets since the JSTL came along.
Indeed, I feel pages are much cleaner and a great deal more legible if
taglibs are used. I rarely, if ever, use anything except the JSTL though.
One notable exception is Struts' own taglibs. I make other exceptions from
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:30:22 -0600, Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless Martin is incorrect about the way JSF handles requests, I'm inclined
to believe (despite the fact JSF will be a part of the next specification)
we might want to consider using something else under the covers in our
