On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:53:52 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm somewhat curious when the Struts committers might be willing to > > make a conscious choice for a Struts 2.x architecture. > > > > While I'm personally going to continue to support the 1.3.x changes > > for evolution of existing apps, and use of the Struts-Faces > > integration library with it, I believe that Struts will become > > gradually less relevant for new application development unless it > > adopts JSF strongly; and it would be a shame to have to *compete* with > > Struts instead of *being* Struts. > > > > I guess this would depend on one's view of JSF and where it's headed. > I'm interested in trying to use JSF in the next release of my project > at work, but I have some serious concerns about the current spec > (1.1). > > One concern is with the limitation surrounding dynamic includes. This > is a huge deal for us as we use Tiles all over the place to help with > our layouts. Tiles is great and I'd hate to give it up just so JSF is > happy. I'm not thrilled about the work-around either (using > f:verbatim tags everywhere). > > The other problem I discovered recently is with the "id" attribute > being determined by JSF (in the standard components.) We have tons of > javascipt that use the getElementById() method which won't work > without changes. Again there is a workaround > (http://www.jsftutorials.com/proxyTag.html) but this seems like a lot > of extra code that shouldn't be necessary. > > My understanding is that the first issue may be addressed in the 1.2 > spec (although its still missing from the latest draft.) I didn't see > anything on the second issue but I might have missed it. > > I understand why these two problems are going to be hard to solve . I > want to emphasize that I think JSF looks very promising and I > appreciate all of the hard work that went into it. But I think that > issues like these need to be addressed before programmers like myself > can fully embrace JSF. Maybe these concerns only affect me, but > judging from the postings I have been reading, it seems I am not > alone.
No, you're definitely not alone. We also have scads of JavaScript code that uses getElementById(), and I wouldn't _want_ to change it, since that is the right way to grab elements you want to manipulate. (In fact, we just got done fixing some of our code to use this, instead of using the name, so that it works correctly on both IE and Mozilla / Firefox.) > I would agree that Struts without JSF could become less relevant, but > only once JSF becomes widely adopted. Right now I don't know any > developers who are using JSF in their applications. I'm sure there > are some people who are using JSF but I doubt it even approaches the > level of developers using Struts. Of course, the same could be said > about Struts a few years ago. There are certainly developers using JSF. Recently, though, I went looking to see how widely adopted it really is, and my impression was that it's not in nearly as widespread use as I had expected. Of course, I could have been looking in the wrong places, and thus have the wrong impression. > I think a key to Struts rapid acceptance was its rapid evolution. The > open source nature of Struts made it easier for people who had issues > with it, to make improvements. With JSF, all we can do is submit > something to the expert group and sit back and wait. IMO this will > slow the adoption of JSF. I understand why JSF is within the JCP, but > I think this is one of the negative results of that decision. This is an interesting point. The key is that we (Struts) need to take maximum advantage of this, and forge ahead while JSF sits in the JCP. ;-) > I guess this means that IMO, I think Struts 1.3 would be relevant for > quite a while yet. I'd hate to see all of (or the bulk of) the > development effort shift to Struts 2.0 at this point because of what I > foresee as a very slow evolution and adoption of JSF. On the other > hand, I could see why Craig wants to keep pusing with the Shale stuff > because that will take time to develop and evolve itself. I guess I > just see the JSF evolution itself as being the critical part missing > from an all-out effort on Struts 2.0/Shale. I don't think you're going to see everyone abandon 1.x any time soon. Speaking for myself, I recently elected to go with Struts 1.3 for a new project in my day job, after looking at a variety of other options, including JSF. Together with a client side framework, this is working out well for us (even if 1.3 technically doesn't exist yet ;). I'm unlikely to be interested in a JSF based solution until the new Dojo client side framework is complete and someone has figured out how to build a JSF component library around that. I'm not holding my breath. ;-) -- Martin Cooper > Just my 2 cents. Thanks again for the hard work on JSF. I'm > continuing to experiment with it and can't wait to use it. Eventually > I will have to dig into your Shale stuff as well. > > > Craig > > sean > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
