On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Actually We probably can provide a non facelets based solution >> under the myfaces umbrella, tomahawk, extensions or impl I don´t care >> but I am definitely sure we will be unable to provide it under >> the standard f: tags... > > yeah. I know. I am really wondering why the "support all views" ship > sailed away. > Again, I understand that some solutions may only fly in Facelets land...
Thinking a bit about this, ...yeah, JSP is dead :-) simple migration (just updating the JARs) to JSF 2.0 will work. Using new features => have to use Facelets > That said, but wasn't the promised goal of the formal/current EG that > a flexible ViewLayer was > the KEY ? ==> Swing-based RenderKit etc ? Or is this (JSF) just another > web-framework ? Doing an f:ajax for JSP shouldn't be hard. An extension could do that. So, yeah, we were always saying JSP is dead. Now it is almost official :-) Not sure if that is really communicated that way. > >> >> +1 for a non facelet based solution... >> >> >> Werner >> >> >> >> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Matthias, Simon (K.) and Werner, >>> >>> no need to name only a few folks. >>> Choosing the right subject will bring attention >>> to folks that are interested ;-) >>> >>>> Sorry I need to come back on this again. We had agreed on putting the >>>> extension attributes within f:attribute tags nested in f:ajax to avoid >>>> compatibility issues with other implementations. In the meantime I >>>> realized >>>> that f:ajax is a facelets-only tag, so additional tag attributes aren't >>> >>> :-) it is funny that the core statement was every view needs to be >>> supported. >>> I can see that some features may only work with Facelets, but a Tag should >>> be present for both, JSP(X) and Facelets. Or am I wrong ? >>> >>>> declared in a taglib, would be ignored by other implementations and >>>> cannot >>>> be detected by the TCK. So, I changed my mind and now would prefer >>>> >>>> <f:ajax myfaces="pps:true, queuesize:1"/> >>> >>> I like that. >>> >>>> over >>>> >>>> <f:ajax> >>>> <f:attribute name="myfaces_pps" value="true"/> >>>> <f:attribute name="myfaces_queuesize" value="1"/> >>>> </f:ajax> >>>> >>>> because the former is less verbose and better readable. >>> >>> +1 I am with you >>> >>> -M >>> >>>> Can you agree with these new arguments? >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Ganesh >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
