Hi Stefan, if you want to use 1.2, you should currently use 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT. There are several major bugs in 1.2 which have been fixed in the meantime. The problem with the value-expressions I cannot reproduce - are you talking about Tomahawk there?
@warnings in the produced HTML: I can't follow you there - both the RI and MyFaces produce ids of the form "_id42", so I don't see how this would be different between the implementations? regards, Martin On 10/21/07, Stefan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I am evaluating JSF as an option for our next web project. I did some > basic evaluation with Suns implementation. It works fine and was easy to > get started. We would like to use more elaborated components and I took > a quick look at MyFaces and Tomahawk. Unfortunately not with the same > success and hopefully all my "beginners fault". First of all, I did > still not manage to run MyFaces 1.2 successfully. Even in a most basic > "hello user" example, I get a lot of complains about value expressions, > which are not permitted as attribute values (Java 6, Tomcat 6. Could > this be the problem?). Next I looked at the latest Tomahawk examples. > They use MyFaces 1.1 but the resulting HTML is full of errors and > warnings. Even with my most basic "hello user" example (only one button > and one input field), I get complains about invalid name and id > attributes. The values start with underscores, which is not allowed in > HTML4. > > So I wonder if it makes sense to continue with the MyFaces > Implementation. Did I miss something? Don't You think, Spec and HTML4 > conformance is important? Do You know other implementations, which are > adhere to the Specs? I appreciate any hint or comment. > > Thank You all > Stefan > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
