>From: "Mike Kienenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> In my opinion, you're better off using facelets.
>
> Facelets appears to be more widely-accepted than Clay. For instance,
> Oracle ADF Faces supports facelets out of the box. Jenia4Faces
> supports facelets. Exadel supports facelets. I don't think any of
> them provide support for Clay. On the other hand, perhaps no such
> support is needed -- I haven't really used Clay. My monitoring of
> the mailing list leads me to believe otherwise, though.
>
> Facelets appears to have a much larger user base than Clay. That's
> just my general opinion having monitored both Shale and Facelets since
> last May.
>
>
> In my opinion, you're better off using facelets.
>
> Facelets appears to be more widely-accepted than Clay. For instance,
> Oracle ADF Faces supports facelets out of the box. Jenia4Faces
> supports facelets. Exadel supports facelets. I don't think any of
> them provide support for Clay. On the other hand, perhaps no such
> support is needed -- I haven't really used Clay. My monitoring of
> the mailing list leads me to believe otherwise, though.
>
> Facelets appears to have a much larger user base than Clay. That's
> just my general opinion having monitored both Shale and Facelets since
> last May.
>
I think we are growing. Hopefully that just means there is more
opportunity to attract participants :-)
> Facelets is maintained primarily by two JSF Expert Group members.
> Facelets activity appears to be actively monitored by two other
> high-profile JSF EG members.
>
It's hard to argue against that. It's easier to get a community rolling
when you have several heavy weights that are actively spreading
the gospel.
Clay had a late start under Struts Shale. I had to hang out for 6
months before given the karma to really move it forward. At the
same time, I couldn't have launched something on my own. I'm
glad for the opportunity to be an apache struts committer.
> Facelets fixes a number of JSF 1.1 issues by providing JSF 1.2 behavior.
>
> I know Gary has put a lot of work into Clay, but I think the forward
> momentum is in favor of facelets. I would not be surprised to see
> facelets included as part of a JSF 2.0 specification.
>
I wouldn't be surprised if that happened too due to the tie with the
Sun RI team. I would like to be on the EG :-)
The inheritance bit in Clay would introduce some challenges for
tool developers. The XML requirement of facelets is more
mainstream for tool support.
Gary
