So, if Shale is just going to assume a JSF (MyFaces) basis, what development responsibilities for Shale would MyFaces have?
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:22:49 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:13:01 -0600, Heath Borders > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just read the Shale proposal, and I don't see why we can't have both > > sides work together on this. > > > > Assuming that the View tier of Shale is pluggable, I don't see why > > MyFaces couldn't have the responsibility of developing a plugin for > > the view. > > It depends on what you mean by the "view tier". > > Shale very deliberately presumes the presence of JSF as a foundation > technology. That means that, among other things, Shale does not need > to reinvent a bunch of technology that JSF already provides (in > particular, managed beans, page navigation, the request processing > lifecycle for form submits, and value/method binding expressions). > Ironically, Shale itself doesn't care a lot about which actual JSF > components you are using :-). It wants JSF for its framework > capabilities. In turn, this lets the development of Shale focus on > the areas that JSF does not, or does not yet, cover. > > You still get a form of view tier pluggability for Shale, but it is by > virtue of the fact that JSF lets you plug in alternate ViewHandlers -- > any ViewHandler that MyFaces might wish to provide will work with > Shale (as long as it conforms to the JSF spec requirements). But that > is just one example of what Shale gains by assuming JSF in the first > place, instead of trying to pretend to plug into any possible UI > component framework. In that scenario, Shale would have to create > redundant support for things JSF already does. There are more > interesting problems to focus on than reinventing those particular > wheels. > > So far, however, the Struts developers have been unwilling to make the > leap to "assume JSF as a base technology, then build on top" -- the > very assumption that is the foundation to the whole idea. > > Craig McClanahan > > > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:46:57 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > What is the main pruposal of MyFaces? I see > > > a: the need of an open source implementation of JSF and > > > b: like the idea to implement 'extras' to give the open source > > > implamantation a real meaning to use it *g* > > > > > > In my opinion shale and similar projects are trying to fill a gap for > > > existing applications or programmers which have not the possibility to > > > change to jsf completly. I developed a application for a company with > > > realy > > > many cooperations so struts ore jsf was no alternative for us because of > > > branding problems and similars. I would realy like to see the focus of the > > > MyFaces on the JSF implementation with performance and stability with the > > > plus of realy needed or 'neat' components to higher the aceptance. Trying > > > to > > > assimilate the one or other project should be the third or further focus > > > to > > > get some attention for developers which have not the chance to decide > > > which > > > technology to use but giving them a plus for the decicionmaker. My opinion > > > is definetly egoistic but i think it is the only chance to deliver > > > extraordinary good code. (even better than sun's (sooorry lars *g* )). > > > > > > It that sense and do not flame me please > > > > > > Carsten Fregin > > > > > > P.S. > > > This is my 11 beer with my investor so please are mercyfull with my bad > > > english and typos *g* > > > > > > > > > -- > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
