>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, if Jacob or I had excepted the mandated "right choice", there wouldn't be any other choices :--) I think that it's interesting that the JSF specification was not specifically written to support JSP. It was even troublesome to implement. The design was not compromised to fit a specific templating strategy. This is choice! BTW, Ryan Wynn is working on an eclipse plugin to support Clay's XML. Gary > R. > Gary > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi > > > > Well nothing comes for free. However, this will change when the worlds turn > jdk1.5 in full. Then annotations will take over for much of what we today see > in > xml files. I might be biased here, but I do not think that Clay is more > complex > with regards to configuration than say Spring which 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 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). > > > > Randahl > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > 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 anyone seen a comparison chart on the net somewhere? I have been > > > > googling for some more information about what clay can and cannot do in > > > > comparison to what facelets can and cannot do. > > > > > > > > I have been testing facelets for some time now, but I would like to find > > > > out if it is worth the effort to have a go at clay as well. I feel > > > > certain we will be using Shale, so the question is what support > > > > technology we will combine Shale with... Facelets or Clay. > > > > > > > > Randahl > > > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > 1. Yes, Shale does not depend on Clay in any way - Actually it is almost > > true > the other way around too, bar some Shale utility function that is uses. > > > > 2. One of the greatest advantages is that Clay supports the OO paradigm > > with > inheritance, where Facelets only supports composition. > > > > > > > > You seem to have some misconception here. Shale is a framework on top of > > ANY > JSF implementation, much like Struts is a framework on top of JSP/Servlets. > Clay > works just as well with MyFaces as it does with Sun's JSF reference > implementation > > > > > > > > I have tested and used both, and finally landed on Clay due to 2. > > > > > > > > Hermod > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Randahl Fink Isaksen [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:04 AM > > > > To: user@shale.apache.org > > > > Subject: Shale and facelets vs. Shale and Clay > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > 2. Has clay got any advantages over facelets when used with shale > > > > because clay was built for shale whereas facelets is meant for any JSF > > > > platform? > > > > > > > > Randahl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > > > > > > This email with attachments is solely for the use of the individual or > > > > entity to whom it is addressed. Please also be aware that DnB NOR cannot > > > > accept any payment orders or other legally binding correspondence with > > > > customers as a part of an email. > > > > > > > > This email message has been virus checked by the anti virus programs used > > > > in the DnB NOR Group. > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
