________________________________
From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:56 PM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: New to MyFaces On 4/6/07, Iordanov, Borislav (GIC) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The assertion is: beginning with year 2000, every serious programmer knows the value components, modularity, pluggability etc. Also, nearly every serious programmer is perfectly capable of coming up with a UI component framework of their own (be it only because UI component frameworks have been the big hit of object-orientation, they epitomized object-orientation for a long time). There's nothing special about the idea, or the architectural principles. What differentiates then one component framework from another is the ease of use, the intuitiveness, the applicability, the moto that I mentioned "simple things should be easy, and complex thing possible" etc. In other words, it's the myriad of details one has to pay attention to in order to make the whole feel right. I deliberately chose the most idiotic example of a detail, the incongruous naming of perhaps the least important tag. You would expect 'img' or 'image' because _everybody_ has one or the other, but no it's 'graphicImage'. I just find it funny. And I don't find it a problem to remember that a component called "graphicImage" will give me a graphic image. If you wanted to, you could just use xhtml, and use facelet's jsfid attribute to connect <img> to the component. I think your fundamental lack of knowledge of JSF and Facelets is evident in this area, and I fail to see how it qualifies you to be a detractor of the technology. Hmm..., see it appears I wasted my time trying to explain the point since you are still stuck on the graphicImage example, I regret it now. Now, two quick substantial issues since you insist (and I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong, I might have misunderstood the spec or myfaces, for that matter): 1) Component state management: all component state needs to be saved, even static state that is defined at compile (or jsp translation time). This is bad architecture. And I hope you are not going to argue that this is fine, because we have so much computing power now ;) Component state management is well defined in the spec. Myfaces Tomahawk gives you even more power with saveState. There are technologies which fit on top of JSF, like Seam, which give you even more power, like conversational and page scoped components. In any case, your statement is flawed: you do not _have_ to save component state. You _can_, by simply using the Session scope, but that is bad design. Component state management is well defined, yes, but it is not defined well. Please make an effort to understand what I'm saying if you want to continue this conversation. I'm not speaking about the lack of conversational state management.
