Re: JSF - Shale transition
The point is not about Struts, which performs fine. THe problem is with JSF, which does not. On 9/9/05, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you mean by inferior if you are interested in performance. Is the overhead of the dialog/navigation processing pretty high? In perspective, vanilla servlet programming is faster than Struts. Isn't it relative to what you *value* in a web framework. Gary -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:19 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Well, have you considered classic struts? Shale is really meant for people who are trying to change an application from JSF to Struts, and not everyone, including myself, think this is a good idea. Shale is not Struts improved but a transition to something entirely different, and inferior in my opinion, if you are interested in performance. On 9/8/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're wanting to go from our home-brewed method of interaction using jsps and servlets that are not very consistent in their expression (other than the general jsp/servlet specs) to something that defines interactions more concretely. Our current frustrations include form handling, page transitions, forwarding, etc. Regards, Kaleb -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:44 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Moving from Struts to JSF is moving to a more defined framework? That is pretty difficult to grasp. Could you explain? On 9/6/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, As I had mentioned in a previous post, our team is looking to move towards a more well defined web framework. From my limited experience using Shale (ran the shale-use-cases) I'm not feeling very confident that we could use it *right away*. I wanted to ask for opinions on what would be a gradual step for us to take towards the Shale framework (once it's stable enough to use in a production environment). For example, would JSF + Spring be a good combo that would make for an easy transition to Shale? Struts + WebFlow + Spring? Etc.. Do the aforementioned framework combinations even matter? Will Shale just add another layer on top or glue together with what we would have already developed? Although I've been reading up on Shale quite a bit, my understanding is still limited so please excuse me if these questions are easily found through already documented sources. If they are, please share where they can be found :) The key to choosing a transition approach is what you want to use for the front controller part of your architecture durng the interim. If you're starting from Struts, a straightforward path would be to use the integration library to start switching your pages to using JSF components instead of Struts HTML tags (without having to modify your actions), followed by a migration of the back-end logic to using JSF's front controller and request processing lifecycle. If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture. Craig McClanahan Regards, Kaleb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back. ~Dakota Jack~ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JSF - Shale transition
Hi, Rick. The fact is that this gentleman asked for an opinion that will influence his business. I think he deserves an honest answer, even if the debate might be old hat to you. On 9/9/05, Rick Reumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) wrote the following on 9/9/2005 9:17 AM: What do you mean by inferior if you are interested in performance. Is the overhead of the dialog/navigation processing pretty high? Oh no:) Here we go again:)... JSF sucks. No, Sruts sucks. Spring rules. No, Spring sucks. Your momma. No, Your momma! Tapestry baby. blah.. WebWorks! No way, .NET For the win! .NET, you're crazy. Cocoon and Echo framework is the best. Come on Flash all the way. Your momma again. rinserepeat It's Friday right?:) -- Rick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back. ~Dakota Jack~ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: JSF - Shale transition
What do you mean by inferior if you are interested in performance. Is the overhead of the dialog/navigation processing pretty high? -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:19 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Well, have you considered classic struts? Shale is really meant for people who are trying to change an application from JSF to Struts, and not everyone, including myself, think this is a good idea. Shale is not Struts improved but a transition to something entirely different, and inferior in my opinion, if you are interested in performance. On 9/8/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're wanting to go from our home-brewed method of interaction using jsps and servlets that are not very consistent in their expression (other than the general jsp/servlet specs) to something that defines interactions more concretely. Our current frustrations include form handling, page transitions, forwarding, etc. Regards, Kaleb -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:44 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Moving from Struts to JSF is moving to a more defined framework? That is pretty difficult to grasp. Could you explain? On 9/6/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, As I had mentioned in a previous post, our team is looking to move towards a more well defined web framework. From my limited experience using Shale (ran the shale-use-cases) I'm not feeling very confident that we could use it *right away*. I wanted to ask for opinions on what would be a gradual step for us to take towards the Shale framework (once it's stable enough to use in a production environment). For example, would JSF + Spring be a good combo that would make for an easy transition to Shale? Struts + WebFlow + Spring? Etc.. Do the aforementioned framework combinations even matter? Will Shale just add another layer on top or glue together with what we would have already developed? Although I've been reading up on Shale quite a bit, my understanding is still limited so please excuse me if these questions are easily found through already documented sources. If they are, please share where they can be found :) The key to choosing a transition approach is what you want to use for the front controller part of your architecture durng the interim. If you're starting from Struts, a straightforward path would be to use the integration library to start switching your pages to using JSF components instead of Struts HTML tags (without having to modify your actions), followed by a migration of the back-end logic to using JSF's front controller and request processing lifecycle. If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture. Craig McClanahan Regards, Kaleb -- -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back. ~Dakota Jack~ - 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] -- You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back. ~Dakota Jack~ - 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]
RE: JSF - Shale transition
What do you mean by inferior if you are interested in performance. Is the overhead of the dialog/navigation processing pretty high? In perspective, vanilla servlet programming is faster than Struts. Isn't it relative to what you *value* in a web framework. Gary -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:19 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Well, have you considered classic struts? Shale is really meant for people who are trying to change an application from JSF to Struts, and not everyone, including myself, think this is a good idea. Shale is not Struts improved but a transition to something entirely different, and inferior in my opinion, if you are interested in performance. On 9/8/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're wanting to go from our home-brewed method of interaction using jsps and servlets that are not very consistent in their expression (other than the general jsp/servlet specs) to something that defines interactions more concretely. Our current frustrations include form handling, page transitions, forwarding, etc. Regards, Kaleb -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:44 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Moving from Struts to JSF is moving to a more defined framework? That is pretty difficult to grasp. Could you explain? On 9/6/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, As I had mentioned in a previous post, our team is looking to move towards a more well defined web framework. From my limited experience using Shale (ran the shale-use-cases) I'm not feeling very confident that we could use it *right away*. I wanted to ask for opinions on what would be a gradual step for us to take towards the Shale framework (once it's stable enough to use in a production environment). For example, would JSF + Spring be a good combo that would make for an easy transition to Shale? Struts + WebFlow + Spring? Etc.. Do the aforementioned framework combinations even matter? Will Shale just add another layer on top or glue together with what we would have already developed? Although I've been reading up on Shale quite a bit, my understanding is still limited so please excuse me if these questions are easily found through already documented sources. If they are, please share where they can be found :) The key to choosing a transition approach is what you want to use for the front controller part of your architecture durng the interim. If you're starting from Struts, a straightforward path would be to use the integration library to start switching your pages to using JSF components instead of Struts HTML tags (without having to modify your actions), followed by a migration of the back-end logic to using JSF's front controller and request processing lifecycle. If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture. Craig McClanahan Regards, Kaleb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JSF - Shale transition
Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) wrote the following on 9/9/2005 9:17 AM: What do you mean by inferior if you are interested in performance. Is the overhead of the dialog/navigation processing pretty high? Oh no:) Here we go again:)... JSF sucks. No, Sruts sucks. Spring rules. No, Spring sucks. Your momma. No, Your momma! Tapestry baby. blah.. WebWorks! No way, .NET For the win! .NET, you're crazy. Cocoon and Echo framework is the best. Come on Flash all the way. Your momma again. rinserepeat It's Friday right?:) -- Rick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JSF - Shale transition
I prefer to do all my webapps in Assembly running on dedicated hardware with no OS at all. Beat *THAT* performance! ;) Frank Gary VanMatre wrote: What do you mean by inferior if you are interested in performance. Is the overhead of the dialog/navigation processing pretty high? In perspective, vanilla servlet programming is faster than Struts. Isn't it relative to what you *value* in a web framework. Gary -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:19 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Well, have you considered classic struts? Shale is really meant for people who are trying to change an application from JSF to Struts, and not everyone, including myself, think this is a good idea. Shale is not Struts improved but a transition to something entirely different, and inferior in my opinion, if you are interested in performance. On 9/8/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're wanting to go from our home-brewed method of interaction using jsps and servlets that are not very consistent in their expression (other than the general jsp/servlet specs) to something that defines interactions more concretely. Our current frustrations include form handling, page transitions, forwarding, etc. Regards, Kaleb -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:44 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Moving from Struts to JSF is moving to a more defined framework? That is pretty difficult to grasp. Could you explain? On 9/6/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, As I had mentioned in a previous post, our team is looking to move towards a more well defined web framework. From my limited experience using Shale (ran the shale-use-cases) I'm not feeling very confident that we could use it *right away*. I wanted to ask for opinions on what would be a gradual step for us to take towards the Shale framework (once it's stable enough to use in a production environment). For example, would JSF + Spring be a good combo that would make for an easy transition to Shale? Struts + WebFlow + Spring? Etc.. Do the aforementioned framework combinations even matter? Will Shale just add another layer on top or glue together with what we would have already developed? Although I've been reading up on Shale quite a bit, my understanding is still limited so please excuse me if these questions are easily found through already documented sources. If they are, please share where they can be found :) The key to choosing a transition approach is what you want to use for the front controller part of your architecture durng the interim. If you're starting from Struts, a straightforward path would be to use the integration library to start switching your pages to using JSF components instead of Struts HTML tags (without having to modify your actions), followed by a migration of the back-end logic to using JSF's front controller and request processing lifecycle. If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture. Craig McClanahan Regards, Kaleb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: JSF - Shale transition
I should've shut my mouth earlier :). Kaleb -Original Message- From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 12:18 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition I prefer to do all my webapps in Assembly running on dedicated hardware with no OS at all. Beat *THAT* performance! ;) Frank Gary VanMatre wrote: What do you mean by inferior if you are interested in performance. Is the overhead of the dialog/navigation processing pretty high? In perspective, vanilla servlet programming is faster than Struts. Isn't it relative to what you *value* in a web framework. Gary -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:19 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Well, have you considered classic struts? Shale is really meant for people who are trying to change an application from JSF to Struts, and not everyone, including myself, think this is a good idea. Shale is not Struts improved but a transition to something entirely different, and inferior in my opinion, if you are interested in performance. On 9/8/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're wanting to go from our home-brewed method of interaction using jsps and servlets that are not very consistent in their expression (other than the general jsp/servlet specs) to something that defines interactions more concretely. Our current frustrations include form handling, page transitions, forwarding, etc. Regards, Kaleb -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:44 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Moving from Struts to JSF is moving to a more defined framework? That is pretty difficult to grasp. Could you explain? On 9/6/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, As I had mentioned in a previous post, our team is looking to move towards a more well defined web framework. From my limited experience using Shale (ran the shale-use-cases) I'm not feeling very confident that we could use it *right away*. I wanted to ask for opinions on what would be a gradual step for us to take towards the Shale framework (once it's stable enough to use in a production environment). For example, would JSF + Spring be a good combo that would make for an easy transition to Shale? Struts + WebFlow + Spring? Etc.. Do the aforementioned framework combinations even matter? Will Shale just add another layer on top or glue together with what we would have already developed? Although I've been reading up on Shale quite a bit, my understanding is still limited so please excuse me if these questions are easily found through already documented sources. If they are, please share where they can be found :) The key to choosing a transition approach is what you want to use for the front controller part of your architecture durng the interim. If you're starting from Struts, a straightforward path would be to use the integration library to start switching your pages to using JSF components instead of Struts HTML tags (without having to modify your actions), followed by a migration of the back-end logic to using JSF's front controller and request processing lifecycle. If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture. Craig McClanahan Regards, Kaleb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com - 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]
RE: JSF - Shale transition
We're wanting to go from our home-brewed method of interaction using jsps and servlets that are not very consistent in their expression (other than the general jsp/servlet specs) to something that defines interactions more concretely. Our current frustrations include form handling, page transitions, forwarding, etc. Regards, Kaleb -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:44 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Moving from Struts to JSF is moving to a more defined framework? That is pretty difficult to grasp. Could you explain? On 9/6/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, As I had mentioned in a previous post, our team is looking to move towards a more well defined web framework. From my limited experience using Shale (ran the shale-use-cases) I'm not feeling very confident that we could use it *right away*. I wanted to ask for opinions on what would be a gradual step for us to take towards the Shale framework (once it's stable enough to use in a production environment). For example, would JSF + Spring be a good combo that would make for an easy transition to Shale? Struts + WebFlow + Spring? Etc.. Do the aforementioned framework combinations even matter? Will Shale just add another layer on top or glue together with what we would have already developed? Although I've been reading up on Shale quite a bit, my understanding is still limited so please excuse me if these questions are easily found through already documented sources. If they are, please share where they can be found :) The key to choosing a transition approach is what you want to use for the front controller part of your architecture durng the interim. If you're starting from Struts, a straightforward path would be to use the integration library to start switching your pages to using JSF components instead of Struts HTML tags (without having to modify your actions), followed by a migration of the back-end logic to using JSF's front controller and request processing lifecycle. If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture. Craig McClanahan Regards, Kaleb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back. ~Dakota Jack~ - 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]
Re: JSF - Shale transition
Well, have you considered classic struts? Shale is really meant for people who are trying to change an application from JSF to Struts, and not everyone, including myself, think this is a good idea. Shale is not Struts improved but a transition to something entirely different, and inferior in my opinion, if you are interested in performance. On 9/8/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're wanting to go from our home-brewed method of interaction using jsps and servlets that are not very consistent in their expression (other than the general jsp/servlet specs) to something that defines interactions more concretely. Our current frustrations include form handling, page transitions, forwarding, etc. Regards, Kaleb -Original Message- From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:44 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF - Shale transition Moving from Struts to JSF is moving to a more defined framework? That is pretty difficult to grasp. Could you explain? On 9/6/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, As I had mentioned in a previous post, our team is looking to move towards a more well defined web framework. From my limited experience using Shale (ran the shale-use-cases) I'm not feeling very confident that we could use it *right away*. I wanted to ask for opinions on what would be a gradual step for us to take towards the Shale framework (once it's stable enough to use in a production environment). For example, would JSF + Spring be a good combo that would make for an easy transition to Shale? Struts + WebFlow + Spring? Etc.. Do the aforementioned framework combinations even matter? Will Shale just add another layer on top or glue together with what we would have already developed? Although I've been reading up on Shale quite a bit, my understanding is still limited so please excuse me if these questions are easily found through already documented sources. If they are, please share where they can be found :) The key to choosing a transition approach is what you want to use for the front controller part of your architecture durng the interim. If you're starting from Struts, a straightforward path would be to use the integration library to start switching your pages to using JSF components instead of Struts HTML tags (without having to modify your actions), followed by a migration of the back-end logic to using JSF's front controller and request processing lifecycle. If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture. Craig McClanahan Regards, Kaleb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back. ~Dakota Jack~ - 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] -- You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back. ~Dakota Jack~ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JSF - Shale transition
Dakota Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/08/2005 04:18:46 PM: Well, have you considered classic struts? Shale is really meant for people who are trying to change an application from JSF to Struts, --do you really mean this?.. Even if you actually instead meant to say from Struts to JSF, I am not sure Shale is really meant for this purpose??? and not everyone, including myself, think this is a good idea. Shale is not Struts improved but a transition to something entirely different, ...yes, transition to something entirely different, this, I guess I can buy...! and inferior in my opinion, if you are interested in performance. Geeta
Re: JSF - Shale transition
Moving from Struts to JSF is moving to a more defined framework? That is pretty difficult to grasp. Could you explain? On 9/6/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, As I had mentioned in a previous post, our team is looking to move towards a more well defined web framework. From my limited experience using Shale (ran the shale-use-cases) I'm not feeling very confident that we could use it *right away*. I wanted to ask for opinions on what would be a gradual step for us to take towards the Shale framework (once it's stable enough to use in a production environment). For example, would JSF + Spring be a good combo that would make for an easy transition to Shale? Struts + WebFlow + Spring? Etc.. Do the aforementioned framework combinations even matter? Will Shale just add another layer on top or glue together with what we would have already developed? Although I've been reading up on Shale quite a bit, my understanding is still limited so please excuse me if these questions are easily found through already documented sources. If they are, please share where they can be found :) The key to choosing a transition approach is what you want to use for the front controller part of your architecture durng the interim. If you're starting from Struts, a straightforward path would be to use the integration library to start switching your pages to using JSF components instead of Struts HTML tags (without having to modify your actions), followed by a migration of the back-end logic to using JSF's front controller and request processing lifecycle. If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture. Craig McClanahan Regards, Kaleb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back. ~Dakota Jack~ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JSF - Shale transition
On 9/6/05, Walton, Kaleb (ISS Southfield) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, As I had mentioned in a previous post, our team is looking to move towards a more well defined web framework. From my limited experience using Shale (ran the shale-use-cases) I'm not feeling very confident that we could use it *right away*. I wanted to ask for opinions on what would be a gradual step for us to take towards the Shale framework (once it's stable enough to use in a production environment). For example, would JSF + Spring be a good combo that would make for an easy transition to Shale? Struts + WebFlow + Spring? Etc.. Do the aforementioned framework combinations even matter? Will Shale just add another layer on top or glue together with what we would have already developed? Although I've been reading up on Shale quite a bit, my understanding is still limited so please excuse me if these questions are easily found through already documented sources. If they are, please share where they can be found :) The key to choosing a transition approach is what you want to use for the front controller part of your architecture durng the interim. If you're starting from Struts, a straightforward path would be to use the integration library to start switching your pages to using JSF components instead of Struts HTML tags (without having to modify your actions), followed by a migration of the back-end logic to using JSF's front controller and request processing lifecycle. If, on the other hand, you decide to commit to JSF's controller early rather than late, you might as well just use Shale along with it from the beginning. Unlike the way that other frameworks deal with JSF, Shale *assumes* you will be using the JSF controller architecture, and it just adds ease of use around problems you'll face anyway. It doesn't try to treat JSF as purely a component architecture. Craig McClanahan Regards, Kaleb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
