> > > Maybe it's something like a "meta-framework". It's not really a > > > "framework" as such because JSF is the framework. > > > But it is some missing parts that integrate fairly > seamlessly with > > > the JSF framework. Missing parts and added value - > things like Clay > > > and Dialog are added value. Things like the core ViewController > > > provide missing pieces to the core JSF framework. > > > > I like the way "meta-framework" sounds, but it implies > something more > > like Keel (http://www.keelframework.org). Shale's name provides the > > underpinnings for the verbage we need -- separate layers that can > > optionally be applied to your application. What's wrong with > > "services"? > > > The "one sentence" description I have been using lately that seems to > resonate: Shale is a set of loosely coupled application > framework services built on top of JSF." If need be, I also > emphasize that we're talking mostly about the "MVC > controller" part of JSF, and are agnostic about component > libraries. Use whatever visual components you'd like, and > use Shale's features to make the back end of your application > easier to compose.
I think the one senetence explanation works quite well. "Loosely coupled" is key. > > > Of course as JSR-299 progresses we may find ourselves in > a different > > > category. There has been talk of building a > > > JSR-299 implementation when the time is right. > > > > I don't know if the category really changes. To me, that's just one > > more layer... > > > Agreed. So would a layer implementing the validation > annotations (303?) if/when it actually happens. True. I think there are lots of opportunities for continually adding value to JSF. Some if it will make it into the spec, and some won't. > Craig ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kito D. Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
