Hmm, good idea about comparison... I will try. But what I don't like in tiles - separate config, in Stripes ( action-based framework) you just define layout in one JSP and in any particular page just substitute some components in base layout - as for me very good approach, you don't have to support many config files.
It seems that you prefer JSF 1.2 to Facelets, am I wrong? 2008/1/4, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Layouts? You mean the composition stuff? > > I think it is very nice. It is also much like Tiles. And as you note > below, you are already using tiles with JSF. I believe that recent > additions to tomahawk improve tiles support in JSF even further. > > Note that I haven't used tiles+jsf together myself. I'd be happy to hear > about pros/cons of this with respect to facelets compositions. > > Regards, Simon > > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 20:23 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote: > > Simon, > > what you know and think about layouts in Facelets? > > > > 2008/1/4, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 19:14 +0200, Anton Gavazuk wrote: > > > > I have project based on JSF 1.1 (MyFaces), Tiles and Tomahawk (1.1.5) > > > > I think about migration to JSF 1.2 and adding some new features and > > > > somehow to move my layouts subsystem to another system. > > > > How you consider - Facelets + MYFaces 1.2.1 would be worth in this > > > > case? > > > > > > JSF1.2 is definitely better than JSF1.1. > > > > > > When using JSF1.1, Facelets is *much* better than JSP. > > > > > > When using JSF1,2, JSP and Facelets are pretty much equal IMO. Facelets > > > does give better error messages but the support for JSP is more mature > > > in IDEs (as the earlier messages in this thread show). > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > >
