> -----Original Message----- > From: JS Portal Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:43 AM > To: user@shale.apache.org > Subject: RE: How to pass object between backing beans > > By the sounds of it jMaki is the way to go then. I understand > you might be a bit bias here, but if it does whatever DOJO > does and more, capturing all frameworks, what would be the > reason for choosing any other framework?
Well, jMaki's built-in JSF support is pretty limited -- it has a generic component that isn't particularly JSF-friendly or easy to use. It also doesn't integrate well with server-side data models. According to Craig, he's working on changing this, so the situation may change soon. I tend to prefer JSF components that hava AJAX functionality -- they integrate much better with JSF applications in my opinion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kito D. Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Craig McClanahan > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 3:29 PM > To: user@shale.apache.org > Subject: Re: How to pass object between backing beans > > On 1/14/07, JS Portal Support <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Craig, > > > > Great, it now works nicely and is portable to any other > view I might > > create in the future without altering my GenericTable view. > > > Cool ... that's the way it's supposed to work :-). > > > On a different note: > > Is it correct btw that MyFaces will use DOJO AJAX toolkit > as its script > > engine of choice? As we are currently looking at our > options it seems to > > me > > this will be the wisest choice right? > > > More specifically, the component libraries at MyFaces > (Tomahawk and Tobago > in the MyFaces project now, Trinidad in the incutabor) have > tended to choose > Dojo for their Ajax support. That's more up to each > individual library than > it is up to MyFaces as a whole. And, as a general policy, I > can't disagree > that it is a reasonable choice. I used Dojo also in our work on the > Blueprints Ajax components[1] that ship with Java Studio Creator and > NetBeans Visual Web Pack. > > We made that choice originally because of the nice lower > level APIs for > asynchronous messaging and eventing on the client side. I've > been pretty > happy with those layers, but not quite as happy with the UI > widget layer -- > which has been going through a lot of evolution lately but is > looking more > settled as we go on. > > Personally, I'm spending a bunch of time today on the jMaki > project[2], > where a primary goal is to let you avoid locking yourself into one > particular widget framework. jMaki strives to provide a > common adapter API > around various widget libraries (including Dojo, Spry, > Scriptaculous, Yahoo, > and a bunch of others) to both reduce complexity and support > mix-and-match. > Today, there's a low level JSF component that provides direct > connection to > a large portion of these libraries, but with a fairly low > level API. I'm > also working on adding a layer of JSF components per widget > that will appeal > more to someone familiar with traditional JSF composition of > your views ... > and, will fit very nicely into visual development tools. > > Needless to say, this all works very nicely with Shale :-). > > I have to say the more I learn about shale/MyFaces the more > excited I get. > > We come from a custom build mvc which we respectfully will > lay to rest now > > :-) > > > :-) > > Thanks, > > Joost > > > Craig >
