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 specification) > > we might want to consider using something else under the covers in our next > > major "era of Struts". I love the idea of adherance to specifications, > > don't get me wrong ... so long as it is pragmatic to do so. > > Repeat after me ... "the parts of JSF that Shale proposes to depend on > have NOTHING to do with visual components ...".
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 clearly suggests that there are facets of JSF that should not be a part of that JSR. Shale purports to depend on the parts of JSF that are unrelated to visual components, while visual components are the "raison d'etre" for JSF. So what, exactly, is the connection between JSF and Shale? And why does Shale need to be linked to JSF? -- Martin Cooper > Craig > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
