On 3/20/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Ok, once again people who use JSF aren't smart, huh wait "technically challenged". If it isn't a fallacy I wonder what it is... >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. If you had taken a serious look at JSF you will see it isn't page controller based but front controller based. FacesServlet is equivalent to the Struts ActionServlet, the big difference is that JSF doesn't include straight out of the book an Application Controller. It focuses on the MVC patterns in which by the way "C" stand for input controller and not application controller, something a lot of people don't get (quite well explained in Fowler book, a worth reading). That what Shale offers - a JSF application controller, aka RequestProcessor in the Struts world. The RequestProcessor is the first reason why I started using Struts and I think it is it's main feature. Sure the html binding tag libraries are great and useful but there are better products out there. The problem I see is that Struts was designed at first to be an application controller and not a MVC framework. Those were included to make it more useable and now Struts has become a really big mess. So if you agree that Struts is an Application Controller offer first, it is normal to accomodate the different MVC frameworks out there just like Spring DI container can be plugged-in to the different MVC frameworks. The question is more do the community want to mark Struts as an application controller framework or as a full blown MVC framework or as both. If you choose the first option, it makes a lot of sense Shale stay under Struts umbrella. To answer your question, no I don't think Tapestry would fit under Struts Umbrella because it's focus is not on the application controller. Well I got to go work soon and this post is already long enough but I will post later the reasons why I choose JSF over Tapestry if you are still interested in. > > > <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. > If you want but other then sensationalism statements à la "Struts is C++ and JSF is VB" or "Struts is for the experienced and capable developpers while JSF is for newbies", I have seen basically nothing on this list. > <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> Ok your snip's structure lost me there so I will answer both of these here. See the first part of my reply -> news flash : " Faces is front controller oriented". I said components framework are good with Ajax because they can encapsulate the big messy JavaScript and the necessary backing Java code for them to work. They are easier to integrate in your application but you can use Ajax without any problem in any Struts application. > > Is that a website that is being used presently? > Yeah an intranet application which is in production right > <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> Once again you use sensationalism words. Shale isn't JSF, Shale is primarily an application controller framework for JSF and comes along with other goodies. This is how I have always pictured Struts, ie a pure generic application controller framework with a lot of goodies (and over time those goodies have made Struts very big indeed). But I guess it depends of your vision of it and I think it is where the debate should be headed - What is Struts main goal ? Application controller framework or MVC framework or both. The answer about Shale presence will than appear very quickly. As a side note about the famous hidden agenda... Judge and argue over the product. Stop trying to interpret every move or this debate will be going nowhere. * Sorry for any mistakes I have made in this *long* post. I am always working hard to improve my english. -- Alexandre Poitras Québec, Canada --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
