On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 14:24, Danny Bols wrote: > > From: Reinhard Poetz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: zaterdag 22 november 2003 13:42 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: CocoonForms compared with JSF > > > > > > > > Over the last days I had an offlist discussion with Sylvain and I don't > > want to keep back a very nice summary of Sylvain comparing CocoonForms > > with JSF. I set up a Wiki page: > > http://wiki.cocoondev.org/Wiki.jsp?page=CocoonFormsJSF > > > > We would be very interested in your opinions because this will become a > > "FAQ" in the future (This week I hold a presentation on Control Flow and > > only mentioned CocoonForms in a few sentences but in the break after it > > the "JSF-question" was one of the first ones I got ;-) > > > > And I'm with you J�rg, that we have to show that CocoonForms is *NOT* > > tied to HTML at all. Maybe a XUL example and a second skin would be > > great! > > > > Awaiting your comments :-) > > Nice summary. > One thing worth mentioning IMO is the Inversion Of Control. Since woody is > integrated in flow the script has control over the form processing steps. I > don't know if JSF has solutions for this.
Indeed a good point to mention, though I think it's more about separation of concerns. Most other webapp frameworks like struts, JSF or tapestry cover both the flow and form concerns, while woody only does forms. Another thing that makes woody different from JSF, at least I think so, is that widgets in woody hold strongly typed data, and that validation happens on this data, not on string values. IIRC JSF only does conversion as part of the binding. Then there's also other stuff like the fact that the structure of a form is described in a form definition (I have no idea how JSF actually builds its component tree), and that lightweight instances of this form definition are created (i.e. what's common to all instances is only held once in memory). Of course, this may make the structure of a Woody form less flexible (but more formal), though with the addition of Tim's union widget we can describe everything of regular complexity (concatentation, repetition and alternation). And last but not least, Woody fits better into Cocoon. IIRC, JSF requires compliant implementations to support at least JSP ;-) -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
