I have expressed my "technical concerns" more than once. I have even had Craig agree with them, in a sense. JSF is built for those who are technically challenged and for tools. I don't think even Craig thinks that JSF is superior as a product for advanced webwork. Who knows anymore, however. Look under my discussions, many of them,. about page based controllers and my advocacy of a web-MVC.
Why don't you say just what the major reason is that you chose Shale, JSF, MyFaces, or whatever over Tapestry? Do you think we should have Tapestry under the Struts "umbrella" too. <snip> On 3/19/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are the one always > bashing JSF, so express your specific technical concerns for once. </snip> This is either ignorance or a lie. I have always backed up my arguments with my technical concerns. That is where my concerns come from. They don't come from kissing anyone's butt, that's for sure. I have decided I could give a s.h.i.t. what people like Gary say about trolls. There is only one person in this particular exchange that has not given the basis for their choice and that is you. If you don't want to, fine. But don't try to pass off blatant falsity about what I have or have not done as the truth. <snip. Frankly, when it comes to back up your claims with technical > arguments, you always seem to run away. Yet you complain about logical > fallacies and you attack personally Gary. You don't want to be called > a troll but you certainly not helping your case. </snip> This is a huge, unfortunate, misunderstanding which I suppose now will gain currency. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent or otherwise discordant between an front controller and Ajax. That is sn inanity. <snip> > For my part, I really appreciated working with Struts for a long time > but I think the zenith of Action-based frameworks has passed, > especially with the advent of Ajax. </snip> Is that a website that is being used presently? <snip> > I prefer as my coworkers do to > using component frameworks now and that why my corporations is > switching from Struts to JSF. And no Dakota it has nothing to do with > Shale or Craig, we gave a try at Vanilla JSF first and even if there > were some rough spots, we were quite happy with it. Plus, JSF have > some momemtum at the moment, just look at the different innovations > going around it now (Seam, Shale, facelets, ADF, tobago, ...). </snip> This debate is not about Struts versus JSF. That is the stupid sense of it. This is about the inappropriateness of JSF being in Struts. Frankly, if someone does not get that, I think they have to either be twisted, not too bright, or have a hidden agenda. <snip> > Well I guess I don't really care about this religious debate. </snip> -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
