RE: Plans to include at least parts of MyFaces into JSF?
Sure! and also another member of MyFaces team is in expert group of JSP 2.1. (Bill Dudney) Both teams work together, as the website of JCP says... :-) So I guess MyFaces' issues and solutions will be addressed in EG's disscussions. Regards, Matthias > -Original Message- > From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:13 AM > To: MyFaces Discussion; Sean Schofield > Subject: Re: Plans to include at least parts of MyFaces into JSF? > > > I just want to add that one of the two founders of the MyFaces project > - Manfred to be more precise - is a member of the JSF expert > group. And I believe he will be bringing up the major issues > we all have had in using and developing MyFaces there as well... > > regards, > > Martin > > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:32:54 -0500, Sean Schofield > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It still amazes me that there is no regular mailing list > for JSF. I > > > hate those forum approaches. Email is so much more conveinient. > > > > +1 on that one > > > > > True, but had you not been diligent enough to look elsewhere > > > (MyFaces) you mention you might have given up. I was in the same > > > boat. JSF might lose some good people that just don't > have the time > > > or energy to look elsewhere. > > > > Agreed. I think this would apply most to issues where there are > > significant shortcomings. For me, the javascript problem was very > > significant shortcoming (the rest of my team was > recommending we drop > > faces investigation until it was resolved in the spec.) > > > > Major issues should be addressed as quickly as possible by > the JCP. I > > think they are doing their best to resolve them. Of course what > > consistutes a major issue is also open for debate. > > > > I'm increasingly coming to view JSF as really just another building > > block for a framework. Just as Struts (and other > frameworks like it) > > are built on JSP and Servlet. JSF is a great starting point upon > > which you can build more sophisticated frameworks. > > > > If everyone moves in this direction, that would be a good > thing. Now > > we would all have JSF in common as well as JSP and Servlets. That > > would make it easier to switch from one framework to > another because > > at least you have a common starting point. (Plus stuff from one > > framework should be more usable in another.) > > > > Craig seems to be taking this approach with Shale. > Recognizing that > > JSF doesn't do everything he is building more on top of it. > He also > > has made a point about how there is no need to reinvent the > stuff that > > JSF manages to take care of for you. I think that is the > key to how > > we as developers should move forward. Embrace JSF and move on. > > > > I probably shouldn't speak too much for Craig or Shale though. I > > still haven't had time to get into the details of his > proposal (I am > > still working on mastering JSF first.) > > > > > Rick > > > > sean > > >
Re: Plans to include at least parts of MyFaces into JSF?
I just want to add that one of the two founders of the MyFaces project - Manfred to be more precise - is a member of the JSF expert group. And I believe he will be bringing up the major issues we all have had in using and developing MyFaces there as well... regards, Martin On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:32:54 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It still amazes me that there is no regular mailing list for JSF. I hate > > those forum approaches. Email is so much more conveinient. > > +1 on that one > > > True, but had you not been diligent enough to look elsewhere (MyFaces) > > you mention you might have given up. I was in the same boat. JSF might > > lose some good people that just don't have the time or energy to look > > elsewhere. > > Agreed. I think this would apply most to issues where there are > significant shortcomings. For me, the javascript problem was very > significant shortcoming (the rest of my team was recommending we drop > faces investigation until it was resolved in the spec.) > > Major issues should be addressed as quickly as possible by the JCP. I > think they are doing their best to resolve them. Of course what > consistutes a major issue is also open for debate. > > I'm increasingly coming to view JSF as really just another building > block for a framework. Just as Struts (and other frameworks like it) > are built on JSP and Servlet. JSF is a great starting point upon > which you can build more sophisticated frameworks. > > If everyone moves in this direction, that would be a good thing. Now > we would all have JSF in common as well as JSP and Servlets. That > would make it easier to switch from one framework to another because > at least you have a common starting point. (Plus stuff from one > framework should be more usable in another.) > > Craig seems to be taking this approach with Shale. Recognizing that > JSF doesn't do everything he is building more on top of it. He also > has made a point about how there is no need to reinvent the stuff that > JSF manages to take care of for you. I think that is the key to how > we as developers should move forward. Embrace JSF and move on. > > I probably shouldn't speak too much for Craig or Shale though. I > still haven't had time to get into the details of his proposal (I am > still working on mastering JSF first.) > > > Rick > > sean >
Re: Plans to include at least parts of MyFaces into JSF?
> It still amazes me that there is no regular mailing list for JSF. I hate > those forum approaches. Email is so much more conveinient. +1 on that one > True, but had you not been diligent enough to look elsewhere (MyFaces) > you mention you might have given up. I was in the same boat. JSF might > lose some good people that just don't have the time or energy to look > elsewhere. Agreed. I think this would apply most to issues where there are significant shortcomings. For me, the javascript problem was very significant shortcoming (the rest of my team was recommending we drop faces investigation until it was resolved in the spec.) Major issues should be addressed as quickly as possible by the JCP. I think they are doing their best to resolve them. Of course what consistutes a major issue is also open for debate. I'm increasingly coming to view JSF as really just another building block for a framework. Just as Struts (and other frameworks like it) are built on JSP and Servlet. JSF is a great starting point upon which you can build more sophisticated frameworks. If everyone moves in this direction, that would be a good thing. Now we would all have JSF in common as well as JSP and Servlets. That would make it easier to switch from one framework to another because at least you have a common starting point. (Plus stuff from one framework should be more usable in another.) Craig seems to be taking this approach with Shale. Recognizing that JSF doesn't do everything he is building more on top of it. He also has made a point about how there is no need to reinvent the stuff that JSF manages to take care of for you. I think that is the key to how we as developers should move forward. Embrace JSF and move on. I probably shouldn't speak too much for Craig or Shale though. I still haven't had time to get into the details of his proposal (I am still working on mastering JSF first.) > Rick sean
Re: Plans to include at least parts of MyFaces into JSF?
Sean Schofield wrote the following on 1/12/2005 11:12 AM: There is also a JSF mailing list on Sun's java forums that seems to have some of the spec people lurking around. It still amazes me that there is no regular mailing list for JSF. I hate those forum approaches. Email is so much more conveinient. I almost decided to give up on JSF because of what I thought were unworkable omissions. At the last minute, the folks on this list persuaded me that we could try and meet the short comings through the myfaces implemenation. So that's what I'm doing now and I'm encouraged by what I am learning about JSF as I go. Its very powerful and very extensible. So yes, there will be lots of things in myfaces that are not supported elsewhere, but JSF does make it easy to provide these add ons. True, but had you not been diligent enough to look elsewhere (MyFaces) you mention you might have given up. I was in the same boat. JSF might lose some good people that just don't have the time or energy to look elsewhere. -- Rick
Re: Plans to include at least parts of MyFaces into JSF?
I would agree with you that its a good idea for the JSF spec people to take a look at what is going on in MyFaces. I've personally submitted some comments on the latest specification draft (although I don't know if that's too late for them to be considered for the upcoming spec if they are not directly related to the proposed changes in the draft.) There is also a JSF mailing list on Sun's java forums that seems to have some of the spec people lurking around. That would probably be the best area to generate momentum for a specific change. I plan to hound them myself about the clientId issue (once I finish implementing it in myfaces.) Ultimately the specification process moves very slowly (deliberately). That makes sense since its a specification that we all have to live with once its agreed upon. Unfortunately, this also hinders rapid evolvement of JSF in a common direction. So the implementations have to go their own way when they need something and try and convince the spec folks to change it after the fact. Its not an ideal solution but probably better than what you would find with Microsoft where they just tell you what the spec is and you are forced to deal with it. So Microsoft's stuff tends to evolve faster this way but I would also argue it's not as well thought out. A classic Catch-22. I almost decided to give up on JSF because of what I thought were unworkable omissions. At the last minute, the folks on this list persuaded me that we could try and meet the short comings through the myfaces implemenation. So that's what I'm doing now and I'm encouraged by what I am learning about JSF as I go. Its very powerful and very extensible. So yes, there will be lots of things in myfaces that are not supported elsewhere, but JSF does make it easy to provide these add ons. sean
Re: Plans to include at least parts of MyFaces into JSF?
The JSF spec accepts requests, and I think people have made requests that the JSF require fixes to problems that MyFaces components solve. On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:52:20 -0500, Rick Reumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't been around following the development discussion of MyFaces, > but I'm curious if there are plans for at least some of the MyFaces spec > included in the JSF spec (if not, I would have to ask why)? I'm a > completely newbie to JSF but am more than competent with Struts and > working on JSF on the side (actually trying to duplicate the simple > examples I created at http://reumann.net/struts/main.do as JSF apps to > help others get up to speed). > > Right away I noticed a major deficiency in JSF with the way it displayed > error messages (not able to have nice a clean way to display the field > name followed by the message - ie: "credit card number is requried"). > This prompted me to look for already built solutions which led me to > MyFaces. (I haven't even got into all the nice components it provides yet). > > So this leads me to the question: If the enhancements MyFaces provides > makes JSF's already existing components better, are there plans to adopt > them as the standard? If not, this would be a shame. The main reason it > would be shame has to do with the state of Open Source solutions that I > see. There are more and more frameworks and solutions being touted each > day and I see companies feeling overwhelmed with having to decide on a > solution. (I have no emperical evidence to back this up but I bet that's > why we'll see so many adopt .NET - simply due to the fact that it's a > standard solution backed by a company with $$ even if it's not the best > solution. I could see a manager going "I don't know what direction to go > in for the next big project. I know we need to put a team together, > lets just get .NET developers.") > > So my digression exists because I want JSF to be the best product it can > be. I understand you wouldn't want to include all the custom components > that some third party committers create, but for the core functions, > shouldn't it include the best enhancements? I often sigh myself when I > realize when coding "Here I go again, I have to download some other jars > in order to accomplish what I want." I understand there is debate about > this and some would argue that's how it should be. I remember on the > Struts list or dev-list people going back and forth over what should be > included (or ripped out) in Struts. I'm now in the camp of including > more is better. > > -- > Rick > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Plans to include at least parts of MyFaces into JSF?
I haven't been around following the development discussion of MyFaces, but I'm curious if there are plans for at least some of the MyFaces spec included in the JSF spec (if not, I would have to ask why)? I'm a completely newbie to JSF but am more than competent with Struts and working on JSF on the side (actually trying to duplicate the simple examples I created at http://reumann.net/struts/main.do as JSF apps to help others get up to speed). Right away I noticed a major deficiency in JSF with the way it displayed error messages (not able to have nice a clean way to display the field name followed by the message - ie: "credit card number is requried"). This prompted me to look for already built solutions which led me to MyFaces. (I haven't even got into all the nice components it provides yet). So this leads me to the question: If the enhancements MyFaces provides makes JSF's already existing components better, are there plans to adopt them as the standard? If not, this would be a shame. The main reason it would be shame has to do with the state of Open Source solutions that I see. There are more and more frameworks and solutions being touted each day and I see companies feeling overwhelmed with having to decide on a solution. (I have no emperical evidence to back this up but I bet that's why we'll see so many adopt .NET - simply due to the fact that it's a standard solution backed by a company with $$ even if it's not the best solution. I could see a manager going "I don't know what direction to go in for the next big project. I know we need to put a team together, lets just get .NET developers.") So my digression exists because I want JSF to be the best product it can be. I understand you wouldn't want to include all the custom components that some third party committers create, but for the core functions, shouldn't it include the best enhancements? I often sigh myself when I realize when coding "Here I go again, I have to download some other jars in order to accomplish what I want." I understand there is debate about this and some would argue that's how it should be. I remember on the Struts list or dev-list people going back and forth over what should be included (or ripped out) in Struts. I'm now in the camp of including more is better. -- Rick
