This question really has nothing to do with Shale, you will probably get
better responses to these questions on the facelets mailing lists.
A couple of things to to check in your web.xml.
In your web.xml you should have a context parameter saying what the suffix
is for your documents
From: Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I have an existing application with ajax4jsf+facelets+trinidad and I
thought it was high time to test shale. Of course, I found that
ajax4jsf and shale do not play well together since shale 1.0.4. I do
not know the insights of shale and I don't
nameHi,
nameIs is possible to use Shale, Clay, Facelets and JSF Templating in
the same application and if so will the shale dialog and the standard
navigation feature behave differently? Also can anyone give me tips on where it
will best use jsf templating over clay or facelets?
Ransford
Ransford,
Just out of curiosity, why are you interested in using Clay, Facelets, and
JSF Templatin in the same application, since they all solve the same
problem?
~~~
Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http
Hi
This seems like a total mess. Keep with one of them (If
siplicity/functionality counts - choose Clay)
Hermod
-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: Kito D. Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 28. mars 2007 22:47
Til: user@shale.apache.org
Emne: RE: Shale, Clay, Facelets and JSF Templating
. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ransford,
Just out of curiosity, why are you interested in using Clay, Facelets, and
JSF Templatin in the same application, since they all solve the same
problem?
~~~
Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer
: RE: Shale, Clay, Facelets and JSF Templating
Ransford,
Just out of curiosity, why are you interested in using Clay, Facelets, and
JSF Templatin in the same application, since they all solve the same
problem?
~~~
Kito D. Mann
I agree with Hermod -- pick one. I'd go with either Facelets or Clay -- I
honestly haven't ever seen anyone use JSF Tem plating outside of the
Woodstock folks.
-Original Message-
From: paksegu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:46 PM
To: user
I do have that setting and I should mention that Facelets + Shale are
working great together. The problem I'm having is only with the
addition of myfaces tomahawk. In the absence of any obvious conflict,
I'll run off to bother the myfaces mailing list for a change :)
Thanks for the suggestion
On 1/26/07, Reynolds, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the taglib
file, don't be tempted to list the actual path to the component in the
tomahawk jar. Follow the component-type listed in the Facelets wiki
I had a feeling it had to do with the tomahawk taglib file. Just so you
know we
Is anyone using Shale Remoting with Facelets? Since you're supposed to
short-circuit the JSF lifecycle from a remoting method, how would you use
facelets to render the resulting view? Is it possible?
Thanks,
Greg
On 12/28/06, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anyone using Shale Remoting with Facelets? Since you're supposed to
short-circuit the JSF lifecycle from a remoting method, how would you use
facelets to render the resulting view? Is it possible?
The sweet spot for Shale Remoting is use
Hi.
I'm also trying to get apache commons validator running together with
shale-1.0.4-SNAPSHOT and facelets 1.11. This is because I can use the
commons-validator package for business validation, too - independent of
the view technologie.
I've read the posts on the mailing-list but now I'm stuck
On 11/25/06, Veit Guna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm also trying to get apache commons validator running together with
shale-1.0.4-SNAPSHOT and facelets 1.11. This is because I can use the
commons-validator package for business validation, too - independent of
the view technologie.
...
Any
expected a msgbox to appear due to JS client verification?!
regards,
Veit
Wendy Smoak schrieb:
On 11/25/06, Veit Guna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm also trying to get apache commons validator running together with
shale-1.0.4-SNAPSHOT and facelets 1.11. This is because I can use the
commons
David Geary schrieb:
2006/11/25, Veit Guna [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Now the validation takes place and the JS gets rendered into the page.
Something with the validation msg looks strange,
What does it look like?
The problem was, that I put a EL resource-bundle reference to the arg
parameter of
So, I got it now working so far.
The missing JS msgbox was a JS-error problem. In my resource bundle I
used quotes around the fieldname and they won't be escaped so this broke
the JS. Using quot; or #34; didn't work either because it won't be
translated in the msgbox :(. So ' and aren't an
From messages on other lists it seems Facelets has more of a following
and is more widely accepted as the right choice. I also noticed that
support for facelets is being built into NetBeans.
R.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Well nothing comes for free. However, this will change when
From: Randahl Fink Isaksen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From messages on other lists it seems Facelets has more of a following
and is more widely accepted as the right choice. I also noticed that
support for facelets is being built into NetBeans.
Facelets does indeed have the majority. However
Both (clay / facelets) have their place. Thanks to both of you guys from
sparing us from JSF+ JSP.
On 10/19/06, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Randahl Fink Isaksen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From messages on other lists it seems Facelets has more of a following
and is more widely
Hi
As far as I am concerned, Clay can do whatever Facelets can do and then some.
Hermod
-Original Message-
From: Randahl Fink Isaksen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:48 PM
To: user@shale.apache.org
Subject: Re: Shale and facelets vs. Shale and Clay
Has
My short tour of Clay documentation looks as if Clay is more heavy when
it comes to declarations. It looks to me as if Facelets has much more
default behavior built in, and that Clay requires you to write more XML
to declare more about what you want to do (please correct me if I am
wrong
everybody is
hailing.
Hermod
-Original Message-
From: Randahl Fink Isaksen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:10 PM
To: user@shale.apache.org
Subject: Re: Shale and facelets vs. Shale and Clay
My short tour of Clay documentation looks as if Clay is more heavy
From: Randahl Fink Isaksen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has anyone got any impressions of the two different combinations shale +
facelets and shale + clay? In particular I was wondering:
1. Is shale *completely* separated from clay so that using facelets
instead of clay does not break anything
Hi. I've been trying to get the commons-validator integration in Shale
to work with facelets. Problem is, s:commonsValidator and
s:validatorScript don't get rendered properly. Instead, they are
literally written in the resulting html.
I'm a newbie to Shale and JSF in general. Since I'm using
Yup. I am working on a complete petstore application for the sandbox.
It uses facelets (and many other technologies) along with Shale. I'm
just working out a couple of Hibernate bugs before I do the initial
checkin.
So far I am using Shale's Spring and ViewController stuff with
facelets
26 matches
Mail list logo
