Jeff Bischoff schrieb: > I agree, it would be great if that were part of the distro. Problem is, > Facelets still isn't officially supported by Tomahawk, and thus > developers don't have to ensure their components will work in Facelets, > let alone provide the configuration and handler classes. Seems like a > huge number of the userbase is already using or migrating to Facelets, > though, so I would expect to see Facelet support improve over time. This > is, of course, a community project! > Getting away from the discussion itself...
Actually having facelets in would be a great welcome for the component devs too, I have been playing around with the thought of having parts of the stuff I am doing being moved into the facelets domain, sort of like a tomahawk facelets. Problem is I cannot do it in the borders of the Tomahawk project currently because those components would only work with facelets. (There was a discussion in the myfaces list a while ago) I will give a description of the core problem. Simple JSF control == 3 classes (one tag class, one component class, one renderer clasS) two xml file entries each class is 100 locs code min and the renderer uses a crude servlet like outputwriter api to the worst. 90% of this code normally is just glue code. 90% of most of this code probably could be replaced by simply facelet tags and only specialized stuff would have to be coded in the component api itself. The component api probably is the biggest problem JSF has in my opinion and it prevents a lot of people jumping onto the ship. Facelets would be an easy entry point to add new components. Heck everything which makes things easier and helps people to ease coding is welcome, it does not have to be facelets.