Re: Startup Error
From: Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 1/18/07, Greg Reddin wrote: On 1/18/07, Gary VanMatre wrote: I had not realized that facelets was a subproject of JSF 1.2 . Humm interesting... That is interesting. I guess it's just a subproject of the java.netproject. It's not actually part of the spec is it? No, it's not. Subproject in the context of this page is talking about the project hierarchy at java.net. Ahh, good marketing strategy, none the less. Greg Craig Gary
JSF 1.1 vs. JSF 1.2
I think I get it now (thanks to help from this list). If I want to use JSF 1.2 with Shale, I must use a J2EE 5 servlet container. However, I may not be able to convince my company to switch from Tomcat 5.5.* If that is the case, I need to decide between the following two setups: 1. JSF 1.2 Facelets or 2. JSF 1.1, Facelets Shale Practically speaking, the main improvements in JSF 1.2 may not offer too much to me since I'm using Facelets. Specifically: 1. EL unification. Since I'm not using JSPs, this isn't a big deal 2. Improved Messages. From what I've read, Shale's info/warn/error methods provide much of the same improvements to 1.1 as there is out of the box in 1.2. Finally, I'll need to consider bug fixes, like the multiple button press issue. In your experience, is developing JSF 1.2 far superior to JSF 1.1? Are there any major tradeoffs that I'm overlooking? Thanks for your time and any advice. E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective action against such code. Sender is not liable for any loss or damage arising from this message. The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized.
Re: JSF 1.1 vs. JSF 1.2
On 1/18/07, Reynolds, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. JSF 1.1, Facelets Shale
This is the platform we are currently developing on. It's very close to
working with JSF 1.2 from what I can tell (though I have not actually used
1.2 yet).
1. EL unification. Since I'm not using JSPs, this isn't a big deal
Well, it's not entirely gone :-) You still do EL with Facelets. It's true
that Facelets allows you to use the unified EL out of the box. But I've
noticed that in some instances using Tomahawk tags I still have to use the
#{...} syntax. The net result is that our code is sprinkled with mostly
${...} and a few #{...} and I have to try to explain to new devs when
and why they have to use one or the other.
Overall, I'm pretty happy with where we are.
Greg
Re: JSF 1.1 vs. JSF 1.2
On 1/18/07, Reynolds, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I get it now (thanks to help from this list). If I want to use JSF 1.2 with Shale, I must use a J2EE 5 servlet container. However, I may not be able to convince my company to switch from Tomcat 5.5.* If you want to run JSF 1.2 on Tomcat, you really want 6.0 not 5.5. It might be technically feasible to hack together a JSF 1.2 implementation that would execute on Tomcat 5.5, but it's hard to see how you could have a completely spec compliant implementation in the absence of JSP 2.1 (which is part of Tomcat 6; Tomcat 5 and 5.5 provide JSP 2.0). If that is the case, I need to decide between the following two setups: 1. JSF 1.2 Facelets or 2. JSF 1.1, Facelets Shale Practically speaking, the main improvements in JSF 1.2 may not offer too much to me since I'm using Facelets. Specifically: Just curious ... is this based on a belief that JSF 1.2 + Facelets + Shale does not work (if it doesn't that is a bug that needs to be fixed), or that Shale does not provide you anything extra if you have JSF 1.2? I confess that I don't recall any details of which Shale features you are looking at from your previous comments ... but there is quite a lot of different things available. 1. EL unification. Since I'm not using JSPs, this isn't a big deal 2. Improved Messages. From what I've read, Shale's info/warn/error methods provide much of the same improvements to 1.1 as there is out of the box in 1.2. Finally, I'll need to consider bug fixes, like the multiple button press issue. In your experience, is developing JSF 1.2 far superior to JSF 1.1? Are there any major tradeoffs that I'm overlooking? Thanks for your time and any advice. Craig
RE: JSF 1.1 vs. JSF 1.2
If you want to run JSF 1.2 on Tomcat, you really want 6.0 not 5.5. It might be technically feasible to hack together a JSF 1.2 implementation that would execute on Tomcat 5.5, but it's hard to see how you could have a completely spec compliant implementation in the absence of JSP 2.1 (which is part of Tomcat 6; Tomcat 5 and 5.5 provide JSP 2.0). You're right, *I* really want Tomcat 6, but my employers are leery of its beta status. They are also concerned about supporting an additional container. Just curious ... is this based on a belief that JSF 1.2 + Facelets + Shale does not work (if it doesn't that is a bug that needs to be fixed), or that Shale does not provide you anything extra if you have JSF 1.2? I confess that I don't recall any details of which Shale features you are looking at from your previous comments ... but there is quite a lot of different things available. I didn't explain myself clearly, I'd prefer to use Shale in either case. My problem is that I may be stuck in Tomcat 5.5.17, which (for me) would necessitate using JSF 1.1. I need to decide if yesterday's setup is good enough, or if it's worth pushing my employers really hard to add a Tomcat 6 setup (and risk being thrown out on my rear). E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective action against such code. Sender is not liable for any loss or damage arising from this message. The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized.
Swallowed Exceptions?
I have a Shale 1.0.3 + Facelets + JSF 1.1 setup running nicely. However, I observed a disconcerting problem. I neglected to package a necessary library (buisness code, not framework code) with my project and then ran the application. Normally, a bone-headed move like this would be rewarded with a stack trace a mile long. Surprisingly, the only error I saw was a 505 error reported in the browser. Nothing on the console and nothing in the logs. This issue is causing me a lot of anxiety because I tend to commit a large number of bone-headed moves. Is there a debug setting I need to add somewhere to ensure that Exceptions bubble all the way up? E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective action against such code. Sender is not liable for any loss or damage arising from this message. The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized.
RE: JSF 1.1 vs. JSF 1.2
From: Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] I didn't explain myself clearly, I'd prefer to use Shale in either case. My problem is that I may be stuck in Tomcat 5.5.17, which (for me) would necessitate using JSF 1.1. I need to decide if yesterday's setup is good enough, or if it's worth pushing my employers really hard to add a Tomcat 6 setup (and risk being thrown out on my rear). Don't forget that you can use JSF 1.2 with Facelets and Tomcat 5.x. And you can use Facelets with Shale, too. That's awesome that Facelets works with Shale too. Looks like there's about a dozen articles and at least a couple Virtua courses. All there at JSFCentral. ~~~ 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
