Just wondering which one to choose...?
Regards,
BTJ
--
---
Bjørn T Johansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Someone wro
In my opinion, definitely ajax4jsf.On 11/2/06, Bjørn T Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just wondering which one to choose...?Regards,BTJ-Bjørn T Johansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ajax4jsf is a good choice.
I use it a lot.
From: Cagatay Civici
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Donnerstag, 2. November 2006
13:05
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: Ajax4jsf or
AjaxAnywhere?
In my opinion, definitely
ajax4jsf.
On 11/2/06, Bjørn T
Johansen
Any specific reasons?
BTJ
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:05:04 +0200
"Cagatay Civici" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion, definitely ajax4jsf.
>
> On 11/2/06, Bjørn T Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Just wondering which one to choose...?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > BTJ
> >
> > --
>
g, 2. November 2006 13:05
> To: MyFaces Discussion
> Subject: Re: Ajax4jsf or AjaxAnywhere?
>
>
>
> In my opinion, definitely ajax4jsf.
>
> On 11/2/06, Bjørn T Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bjorn,
While they are similar in approach and capabilities, Ajax4jsf seems to
be the most common choice for JSF users today. While, AjaxAnywhere works
fine with JSF - indeed it was a common choice not too long ago - it is
written for JSP in general. Today we have ajax4jsf, which is designed
s
November 2006 15:34
To: users@myfaces.apache.org
Subject: RE: Ajax4jsf or AjaxAnywhere?
Can I use it with dataScrollers and sortheaders?
Michael Heinen wrote:
>
> ajax4jsf is a good choice.
>
> I use it a lot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
&g
Michael Heinen wrote:
Yes, but you have to apply some patches to the myFacesComponents.
See:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-764
Those changes are already in the head, so one would only need to grab
the latest nightly build. ;)
bject: Re: Ajax4jsf or AjaxAnywhere?
Michael Heinen wrote:
> Yes, but you have to apply some patches to the myFacesComponents.
>
> See:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-764
>
Those changes are already in the head, so one would only need to grab
the latest nightly build. ;)
I agree that ajax4jsf is more elegant but if I just enable the filter for
ajax4jsf, it fucks up my webpages; i.e. my tables...
If I enable the filter for ajaxanywhere instead, my webpages get rendered as
expected...
So if there is no more compelling reasons not to use ajaxanywhere, I think I
wi
Hi
I'm totally in the mood for ajax4jsf, but couldn't get it to work with
Tobago
So I'm desperately looking for workaround
Anyone, please?
Thanks
Stojan
Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
I agree that ajax4jsf is more elegant but if I just enable the filter for
ajax4jsf, it fucks up my webpages; i.e.
goodusername wrote:
I'm totally in the mood for ajax4jsf, but couldn't get it to work with
Tobago
So I'm desperately looking for workaround
Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
I agree that ajax4jsf is more elegant but if I just enable the filter
for ajax4jsf, it fucks up my webpages; i.e. my tables...
I didn't even tried AjaxAnywhere, I wanted to use ajax4jsf, and I still want :)Your response is ok, but no thanksStojan
Well I think most customers would rather have something that works thansomething elegant. ;)So if AjaxAnywhere is working better for you, I would suggest stick withit. There's no
someone replied:
"It's even worse than that; play it forwards and it installs Windows"
---
View this message in context: Re: Ajax4jsf or AjaxAnywhere?
Sent from the MyFaces - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Mike,
Well ajax4jsf uses the CDDL [1], right?
What part of the license agreement are you refering to? When I skimmed
over it, everything looked pretty standard. There didn't seem to be any
clauses that would restrict my use of ajax4jsf in the commercial
intranet application that I am developi
--
>>> Someone wrote:
>>> "I understand that if you play a Windows CD backwards you hear strange
>>> Satanic messages"
>>> To which someone replied:
>>> "It's even worse than that; play it forwards and it installs Windows"
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Ajax4jsf-or-AjaxAnywhere--tf2559375.html#a7147645
Sent from the MyFaces - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Mike Shaw wrote:
> I think, you are right. I was reading clause 3.1 and it seems
restrctive to
> me but then clause 3.5 allows us to use for commercial purpose
I had that same impression the first time I read 3.1, but when you go
back to the top and reread the definition of "Covered Software",
17 matches
Mail list logo
