Hi I am not blaming Clay or Shale for anything - far from it because I am a firm believer :)
If you read my reply to Gary, it might be a bit clearer what I was trying to describe. I was not expecting CLay to handle the synchronization of the tree, only being responsible for rendering a response to the asyncronous request, where the rendered respons is just an html fragment, for instance a html table. Hermod -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Craig McClanahan Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 7:40 AM To: user@shale.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CLAY: Using clay to import file in remoting method On 12/6/06, Hermod Opstvedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > > I think we need to give this a good hard thought. What you (if I read you > right) are saying in essence is that Shale/Clay and Ajax will not work. You are not understanding Gary correctly. What you are trying to do, it seems, is based on incorrect expectations. With regards to JSF and AJAX, there are two fundamental paradigms that can be addressed: * Keep the JSF component tree up to date with respect to dynamic changes that happen because of asynchronous interactions. * Ignore the JSF component tree, and just serve the asynchronous requests. You seem to be expecting the former, and blaming Clay because this doesn't happen. The reality is that Shale Remoting is focused on the latter case, not the former. The fact that synchronizing changes to the component tree is based on that fact -- using Clay, or JSP, or Facelets, or anything else as the view tier has nothing to do with it. There are many solutions to the former use case. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be intimately tied to a particular component library. One that is not, which pleases me from an architectural viewpoint, is Dynamic Faces ( https://jsf-extensions.dev.java.net), which will work just fine with Shale functionality. Please don't assume that Clay is the problem here -- it should NOT have the responsibility for synchronizing the component trees. If you need that, use a framework in concert with Clay that supports this. If you don't (and therefore can achieve better overhead because you're not sending dynamically updated component trees for the entire page back and forth), use Shale Remoting. The key -- your goal should be that these decisions (sync versus not, and which view technology you like) should be independently mixable, not forced upon you by the choice of one or the other. Craig * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
