Gavin seems to really dig JSF

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

+1

Of course he will say JSF is good

+1

Of course he will say JSF is good

He is pushing his JSF based framework called SEAM! It would look rather odd if he dissed JSF, wouldn't it?

Of course he will say JSF is good

He is pushing his JSF based framework called SEAM! It would look rather odd if he dissed JSF, wouldn't it?

This is strange reasoning. Why would he have started Seam unless he thought JSF was a good framework?

Oh, I'm sure he believes JSF *is* good

What pun?

Gavin seems to really dig JSF (pun intended).

+1

Interaction models of other web component frameworks seam freaky compared to JSF's one.

What pun?

Gavin seems to really dig JSF (pun intended).

I know you shouldn't have to explain a joke, but what pun?

Oh, I'm sure he believes JSF *is* good

What I'm saying is that him saying so isn't surprising. It would be very very strange if he didn't say he liked JSF.

So who cares?

How can you suppose that

Of course he will say JSF is good

But then again, he has credibility when it comes to object-relational mapping, not web frameworks. He is just a shmoe like you and me in that area.

So who cares?

Who cares if Gavin seems to dig JSF?

Unfortunately, there are also many whose decision are very much standards driven. I suspect Gavin's choice is the later. And that is rather unfortunate.J.

every joke has a bit of truth

How can you suppose that

The guy has proven in the past he was able to go out of the standard by creating Hibernate, which then became a standard itself (mainly because he tought EJB was a "bad" development standart). But if you think the standard is good, there's no reason to create a new one (the best idea is to try to propose some improvements if necessary). Joz

So who cares?

Who cares if Gavin seems to dig JSF? He blindly chose JSF because it's a spec (a standard). I wonder if he really genuinely looked deeper into one of the proven and powerful web frameworks of our time such as Wicket, Tapestry or Echo2.What most people care about is a framework that makes them productive and has a nice concept behind it. Unfortunately, there are also many whose decision are very much standards driven. I suspect Gavin's choice is the later. And that is rather unfortunate.J.

"When I came to look at JSF, I was casting around for a web framework to marry with EJB3. I was looking around and I was 'well let's start with what it is the spec. (JSF)'. And I was thinking it was going to be a steaming pile. (However), I found once I actually sat down and looked at it. It was working how I would think to design a (web) framework. When I used it, it was real easy to use and I think it is great." -- G. King

I wonder if he really genuinely looked deeper into one of the proven and powerful web frameworks of our time such as Wicket, Tapestry or Echo2.

How can you suppose that

The guy has proven in the past he was able to go out of the standard by creating Hibernate, which then became a standard itself (mainly because he tought EJB was a "bad" development standart). But if you think the standard is good, there's no reason to create a new one (the best idea is to try to propose some improvements if necessary). Joz

Man, be smart for once. This guy is now working for a company that survives by implementing specs and release them under open source. Or is that just a coincidence?J

So who cares?

Who cares if Gavin seems to dig JSF?

I care, I respect his contributions to the Java world and I really like to know what people like him, Rod Johnson, ... you name them, think about some products.

Unfortunately, there are also many whose decision are very much standards driven. I suspect Gavin's choice is the later. And that is rather unfortunate.J.

You can read mind? And by the way, yeah he liked so much EJB2 that he developped Hibernate... If you don't agree with him and you don't like JSF, it is your choice but stop spreading false statements like that. I'm tired of this anti-spec attitude.

So who cares?

Who cares if Gavin seems to dig JSF? He blindly chose JSF because it's a spec (a standard). I wonder if he really genuinely looked deeper into one of the proven and powerful web frameworks of our time such as Wicket, Tapestry or Echo2.What most people care about is a framework that makes them productive and has a nice concept behind it. Unfortunately, there are also many whose decision are very much standards driven. I suspect Gavin's choice is the later. And that is rather unfortunate.J.

So who cares?

Who cares if Gavin seems to dig JSF?

I care, I respect his contributions to the Java world and I really like to know what people like him, Rod Johnson, ... you name them, think about some products.

Unfortunately, there are also many whose decision are very much standards driven. I suspect Gavin's choice is the later. And that is rather unfortunate.J.

You can read mind? And by the way, yeah he liked so much EJB2 that he developped Hibernate... If you don't agree with him and you don't like JSF, it is your choice but stop spreading false statements like that. I'm tired of this anti-spec attitude.

Ok, Gavin would tell you JBoss is the most revolutionary and best app server on the planet. From your narrow mindedness I can say for sure you'll take his word for it.

Kevin is so Smart

What pun? (that's not it)

Gavin seems to really dig JSF (pun intended).

I know you shouldn't have to explain a joke, but what pun?

I am going to venture a guess and go with:Gavin really gets/likes (digs - verb) JSF.Others say bad/sarcastic things (digs -noun) about JSF.

How can you suppose that

The guy has proven in the past he was able to go out of the standard by creating Hibernate, which then became a standard itself (mainly because he tought EJB was a "bad" development standart). But if you think the standard is good, there's no reason to create a new one (the best idea is to try to propose some improvements if necessary). Joz

Man, be smart for once. This guy is now working for a company that survives by implementing specs and release them under open source. Or is that just a coincidence?J

I know where you can buy aluminum foil helmets for real cheap,. ;)

So who cares?

My question is did he spend equal amount of time and effort on Wicket, Tapestry or Echo2 before drawing his conclusion? From this interview it doesn't seem so. And that's what worries me.J

So who cares?

"When I came to look at JSF, I was casting around for a web framework to marry with EJB3. I was looking around and I was 'well let's start with what it is the spec. (JSF)'. And I was thinking it was going to be a steaming pile. (However), I found once I actually sat down and looked at it. It was working how I would think to design a (web) framework. When I used it, it was real easy to use and I think it is great." -- G. King

So who cares?

Rick,Examine the quote below from Gavin't interview yourself:

"When I came to look at JSF, I was casting around for a web framework to marry with EJB3. I was looking around and I was 'well let's start with what it is the spec. (JSF)'. And I was thinking it was going to be a steaming pile. (However), I found once I actually sat down and looked at it. It was working how I would think to design a (web) framework. When I used it, it was real easy to use and I think it is great." -- G. King

So he says he started with the Spec. Did he go to look deeper into other frameworks or he started and stopped by the spec product just because it's a spec? It worries me that's the case.J

punny

Interaction models of other web component frameworks seam freaky compared to JSF's one.

Were you trying to be punny? :)

So who cares?

My question is did he spend equal amount of time and effort on Wicket, Tapestry or Echo2 before drawing his conclusion? From this interview it doesn't seem so. And that's what worries me.J

Yes, he did spend time looking at Tapestry. Wicket would run into the same problems for the reason of not exactly having full Model/View separation. Again, we could go back and forth on the validity of that point, but two things: JSF has Model/View separation such that it's extremely easy to drop in solutions like Seam, Shale, or your own controller. Secondly, I know that Seam could be used with other frameworks down the road, maybe not as easily, but I'm sure it's on the table.

Kevin is so Smart

Thank you so much Kevin. JSF is a strong framework. I've been wokking on JSF since early 2004. I build a big Project and it's really working fine. I agree with some of you who have/had some difficulties using it (The learning curve is little hard), But patient programmers will find it worth working on JSF.The Best of the best is to go JSF/Spring/Hibernate. For sure you will programming.thanks

So who cares?

If you listen to the interview, you will note that he looked into Tapestry.

So who cares?

If you listen to the interview, you will note that he looked into Tapestry.

Probably with less effort and time because Tapestry is not a spec. I certainly believe if had, he would have chosen the REAL component oriented framework. Maybe he did. But who knows, company direction might have influenced him to choose otherwise.

J.

So who cares?

If you listen to the interview, you will note that he looked into Tapestry.

Probably with less effort and time because Tapestry is not a spec. I certainly believe if had, he would have chosen the REAL component oriented framework. Maybe he did. But who knows, company direction might have influenced him to choose otherwise.J.

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

Of course he will say JSF is good

He is pushing his JSF based framework called SEAM! It would look rather odd if he dissed JSF, wouldn't it?

This is strange reasoning. Why would he have started Seam unless he thought JSF was a good framework?

No offense but...

What pun?

Gavin seems to really dig JSF (pun intended).

I know you shouldn't have to explain a joke, but what pun?

I am going to venture a guess and go with:

Gavin really gets/likes (digs - verb) JSF.
Others say bad/sarcastic things (digs -noun) about JSF.

No offense but...

What does Gavin really know about writing web frameworks? That doesn't detract from how truly innovative and superior Hibernate is as a means of persistence, but.....

No offense but...

... Please argue on what he says in the interview so we can have a constructive discussion not on his *hidden agenda* or other crap of this kind. It's not a political forum after all..

No offense but...

What does Gavin really know about writing web frameworks? That doesn't detract from how truly innovative and superior Hibernate is as a means of persistence, but.....

No offense but...

... Please argue on what he says in the interview so we can have a constructive discussion not on his *hidden agenda* or other crap of this kind. It's not a political forum after all..

Fair enough. I don't agree that styling via css alone is more than enough and the ~only~ way people should be doing web development. In order to have a flexible framework I believe it is much better to allow a little bit more control over the actual html being output and not rely on css alone. This is a personal opinion based on experiences with various libraries that have tried to do this and decided it wasn't the best idea. There are just too many situations where this creates customization problems. So, I would say the css statement alone sort of rubbed me the wrong way and indicated a certain level of experience. Just an opinion though....

Kevin is so Smart

So who cares?

No offense but...

No offense but...

No offense but...

Jesse, you're right in saying that CSS isn't the only answer, but it is an answer to the degree of not needing to formulate your whole view layer around designers within the structual markup. We are a ways in on a *very* large project and our designer spends 95% of his time just setting styles/classes and modifying CSS files. Even our JS events are externally decorated instead of explicitly defining them as attributes on structual elements. It's a new route of development that does require expertise, but if you have expert designers, then this development route makes a ton of sense w/ retaining control by the appropriate parties.

Kevin is so Smart

Ulterior motive no, conflict of interest yes

How can you suppose that

Mark, You made my Orange Juice come through my nose. Too funny! Thanks.

What pun?

Gavin seems to really dig JSF (pun intended).

I know you shouldn't have to explain a joke, but what pun?

I am going to venture a guess and go with:Gavin really gets/likes (digs - verb) JSF.Others say bad/sarcastic things (digs -noun) about JSF.

Gavin seems to really dig JSF ..Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol Coherence: Clustered Shared Memory for Java

So who cares?

Wicket would run into the same problems for the reason of not exactly having full Model/View separation.

Ken Lay has left the building

If Gavin was pushing a stock, wouldn't we notice that he is fully vested in JSF? It is OK to push a stock or technology even if you have conflicts of interests, of course, but ignoring them as a listener would be just totally idiotic.

Of course he will say JSF is good

He is pushing his JSF based framework called SEAM! It would look rather odd if he dissed JSF, wouldn't it?

His analysis of why he doesn't like Tapestrys straight HTML template files are rather idiotic.

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

And the MyFaces founders _did_ evaluate just taking an existing framework at this time - or creating a new framework just like everyone else ;).regards,Martin

So who cares?

Wicket would run into the same problems for the reason of not exactly having full Model/View separation.

Say what? Wicket hides the model behind an locator interface. You are free to plug any model you like and I am already doing automated SEAM like validations without having the need for that extra framework.If you don't want a JSF thread to be stolen by 'noisy people who are promoting competing frameworks' you might want to consider not talking about those competing frameworks. And if you do, please make sure what you tell is true.

Of course he will say JSF is good

Binding to arbitrary properties of arbitrary beans (JSF, Struts, plain JSP) is simpler than building a hierarchy of Java classes that reflects component structure (Wicket).

In this respect it would be interecting to hear how Wicket and Tapestry implement ajaxified in-place update where DOM structure of a page can be changed. Do they require to modify the structure of Java classes (not the relationship of instantiated objects) on the server side as well?

Gavin is totally right about CSS, it is 2006 after all. Go check out the css zen garden.

So who cares?

Yes, but I think Michael did an excellent job of elaborating a bit more on the issue

Wicket would run into the same problems for the reason of not exactly having full Model/View separation.

Yes, but I think Michael did an excellent job of elaborating a bit more on the issue

Of course he will say JSF is good

Binding to arbitrary properties of arbitrary beans (JSF, Struts, plain JSP) is simpler than building a hierarchy of Java classes that reflects component structure (Wicket).

It's a tradeoff. JSF is stronger if you have to often change your hierarchy. Wicket is stronger when it comes to component/ model interaction.

weekly JSF promition

weekly JSF promition

So Rick, Jacob, Steve, ... already bussy writing your next JSF promotion for TSS/ JavaLobby? It's almost like it needs a bit of promotion :)

weekly JSF promition

So Rick, Jacob, Steve, ... already bussy writing your next JSF promotion for TSS/ JavaLobby? It's almost like it needs a bit of promotion :)

Kevin is so Smart

JSF, the problematic spec requiring something to supplant it

cite="http://www.javaposse.com/index.php?post_id=59304"> then you are mixing your semantic data definintion with your presentation does not hold water because it is 2006 guys and you are not suppose to be doing presentation in your HTML. You are suppose to be doing it in your CSS.

Of course he will say JSF is good

Binding to arbitrary properties of arbitrary beans (JSF, Struts, plain JSP) is simpler than building a hierarchy of Java classes that reflects component structure (Wicket).

It's a tradeoff. JSF is stronger if you have to often change your hierarchy. Wicket is stronger when it comes to component/ model interaction.

In this respect it would be interecting to hear how Wicket and Tapestry implement ajaxified in-place update where DOM structure of a page can be changed. Do they require to modify the structure of Java classes (not the relationship of instantiated objects) on the server side as well?

With Wicket you have to change the relationship of the instantiated objects. E.g. you replace Panel x with Panel y. Btw, such AJAX support is already in place for Wicket. You can check it out today if you are interested (though you're probably busy with your own framework ;))

Gavin is totally right about CSS, it is 2006 after all. Go check out the css zen garden.

So why can't you have clean templates that work with CSS?

What about the argument that if your HTML isn't messed up with foreign tags, it is just easier to read, maintain, etc?

Of course he will say JSF is good

I guess that JSF is not supposed to contain any HTML, only JSF tags. Whatever is rendered depends on renderer, so there should be no HTML to mess. In relation to "HTML is easier to read", this is only because you already know HTML. I guess that JSF is not supposed to be read, the same as Delphi's DFMs are not supposed to be read. For me, JSF page is more like a dialog window resource definition and I think that in some way it is similar to XAML.

Of course he will say JSF is good

I hope Wicket gets better recognition though.

I guess that JSF is not supposed to contain any HTML, only JSF tags. Whatever is rendered depends on renderer, so there should be no HTML to mess. In relation to "HTML is easier to read", this is only because you already know HTML. I guess that JSF is not supposed to be read, the same as Delphi's DFMs are not supposed to be read. For me, JSF page is more like a dialog window resource definition and I think that in some way it is similar to XAML.

JSF, the problematic spec requiring something to supplant it

cite="http://www.javaposse.com/index.php?post_id=59304"> then you are mixing your semantic data definintion with your presentation does not hold water because it is 2006 guys and you are not suppose to be doing presentation in your HTML. You are suppose to be doing it in your CSS.

That's rich considering JSF in all the Sun and MyFaces components embed static HTML and Javascript in Java classes, a la Servlets, 1999.

So wide of the mark

"A lot of people have the idea (that Tapestry's) idea of plain HTML and seperating out the component definitions (is a good idea). Frankly, after considering this a lot, I actually I find it nicer to put the component definitions in the page. The argument that but then you are mixing your semantic data definintion with your presentation does not hold water because it is 2006 guys and you are not suppose to be doing presentation in your HTML. You are suppose to be doing it in your CSS."

Of course he will say JSF is good

No offense but...

What does Gavin really know about writing web frameworks? That doesn't detract from how truly innovative and superior Hibernate is as a means of persistence, but.....

Sun Java Creator for JSF

HttpSession vs SFSB

tapestry

HttpSession vs SFSB

Can anyone elaborate on Gavin's argument that SFSB is just as good as HttpSession, if not better? If I run into scalability problems from shoving too much in the session, won't I run into the same problems, at about the same time (i.e. about the same number of concurrent users), if I'm shoving it into SFSBs instead? What's the solution? Enlarge the cluster of JBoss app servers? Vs keep it in the session and buy a Coherence license?

tapestry

Tapestry allows my to unit test my Pages w/out needing a servlet engine. Will JSF give me that?(not sure yet)Thanks Gavin for allowing my Domain model programming to prosper w/ Hibernate!

you're right...

you're right...

I immediately felt bad for the way my original post came off...Sort of a talk first and think later approach. The original intent wasn't to attack anyone in particular, but instead to try and bring context into the web area..I'm sure Gavin's perfectly capable of diving into a framework and owning all the portions of it eventually...Of course it's also hard to not feel like a response is needed when all people read about is SEAM and then hear the javaposse interview..I know he doesn't think JSF isn't the only good technology out there, but it didn't seem like this was a well known public sort of thing so it gets frustrating sometimes when more zealout types start spouting off about how "obvious" it is that JSF is the best thing ever...Every framework has positive/negative points..Either way the original post was out of line and I humbly apologize for what it contained..

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

Or perhaps because JSF has a lot of support

If you listen to the interview, you will note that he looked into Tapestry.

Probably with less effort and time because Tapestry is not a spec. I certainly believe if had, he would have chosen the REAL component oriented framework. Maybe he did. But who knows, company direction might have influenced him to choose otherwise.J.

There are many reasons to pick JSF

If you listen to the interview, you will note that he looked into Tapestry.

Probably with less effort and time because Tapestry is not a spec. I certainly believe if had, he would have chosen the REAL component oriented framework. Maybe he did. But who knows, company direction might have influenced him to choose otherwise.J.

Frameworks are not a religion my friend, there is no the Real component oriented framework, just ones which might fill the tasks you want to achieve better than others.I for instance went for various reasons the JSF route, one it is a component oriented framework with a more than decent event system, second there already was a huge stack of third party components there so there was momentum behind it. Third there already was tool support there and you could go along with it really well without tools.And fourth being a standard also influenced my decision, but only to the smallest degree because the standard thing, the whole thing simply came closest to what I expect from a good webframework.But there is no real best framework, only ones which can fullfill your needs better than others.

What pun?

Gavin seems to really dig JSF (pun intended).

I know you shouldn't have to explain a joke, but what pun?

I am going to venture a guess and go with:Gavin really gets/likes (digs - verb) JSF.Others say bad/sarcastic things (digs -noun) about JSF.

Gavin seems to really dig JSF ..Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol Coherence: Clustered Shared Memory for Java

Kevin is so Smart

I've been messing with Facelets since reading the "fits like a glove.." article, and I have to agree with you, it compliments JSF very nicely. I've been converting (read removing) my UIComponent/Tag classes to composition components.. what a nice change that is. For those of you who DO like JSF you really need to try Facelets.http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-facelets/Oh, and I agree with Kevin's comments about JSF. If you want a second opinion you can read the comments on JSF by the creator of struts too (yeah I know he works for Sun now so everything he says is suspect. whatever.)

Kevin is so Smart

Who is 'Kevin'? ;)

How can you suppose that

Mark, You made my Orange Juice come through my nose. Too funny! Thanks.

You're welcome. Glad I finally got one to work. But you can thank whomever mentioned this same thing in another thread.

Everything is a conspiracy these days. It is one thing to be skeptical. It is quite another to live in a closet with alluminum foil on your head to block the evil gamma rays that the government is using to control your brain.

Make a point why you feel JSF and/or Facelets sucks and then see how quickly Jacob and/or Steve (and/or Kito) rip it apart.

I'd go with the conspiracy theory if I was you too. It is much safer to do that than opine about the technology where you will get shredded.

So let me get this straight you don't like JSF and you don't like Faclets. So what do you like?

I am sure there are not shortcommings or tradeoffs with it. eh?

So who cares?

Wicket would run into the same problems for the reason of not exactly having full Model/View separation.

Say what? Wicket hides the model behind an locator interface. You are free to plug any model you like and I am already doing automated SEAM like validations without having the need for that extra framework.If you don't want a JSF thread to be stolen by 'noisy people who are promoting competing frameworks' you might want to consider not talking about those competing frameworks. And if you do, please make sure what you tell is true.

'noisy people who are promoting competing frameworks'

Seamless Seam?

There's no doubt in my mind that you couldn't adapt Seam to work with other frameworks-- it just wouldn't be as seamless to the developer ;-)

Of course he will say JSF is good

Binding to arbitrary properties of arbitrary beans (JSF, Struts, plain JSP) is simpler than building a hierarchy of Java classes that reflects component structure (Wicket).

It's a tradeoff. JSF is stronger if you have to often change your hierarchy. Wicket is stronger when it comes to component/ model interaction.

In this respect it would be interecting to hear how Wicket and Tapestry implement ajaxified in-place update where DOM structure of a page can be changed. Do they require to modify the structure of Java classes (not the relationship of instantiated objects) on the server side as well?

With Wicket you have to change the relationship of the instantiated objects. E.g. you replace Panel x with Panel y. Btw, such AJAX support is already in place for Wicket. You can check it out today if you are interested (though you're probably bussy with your own framework ;))

Gavin is totally right about CSS, it is 2006 after all. Go check out the css zen garden.

So why can't you have clean templates that work with CSS? What about the argument that if your HTML isn't messed up with foreign tags, it is just easier to read, maintain, etc?

weekly JSF promition

So Rick, Jacob, Steve, ... already bussy writing your next JSF promotion for TSS/ JavaLobby? It's almost like it needs a bit of promotion :)

This is one of the things I hate the most about writing JSF comp

cite="http://www.javaposse.com/index.php?post_id=59304"> then you are mixing your semantic data definintion with your presentation does not hold water because it is 2006 guys and you are not suppose to be doing presentation in your HTML. You are suppose to be doing it in your CSS.

That's rich considering JSF in all the Sun and MyFaces components embed static HTML and Javascript in Java classes, a la Servlets, 1999.

So wide of the mark

"A lot of people have the idea (that Tapestry's) idea of plain HTML and seperating out the component definitions (is a good idea). Frankly, after considering this a lot, I actually I find it nicer to put the component definitions in the page. The argument that but then you are mixing your semantic data definintion with your presentation does not hold water because it is 2006 guys and you are not suppose to be doing presentation in your HTML. You are suppose to be doing it in your CSS."

The above comment is just so wide of the mark. The CSS thing is just a red herring. Of course anyone working with a HTML presentation layer should make extensive use of CSS. That goes without saying. But the HTML template is still unambiguously part of the presentation layer (as is the CSS). It's just lighter and more maintainable presentation template. The real issue that was being raised is where should the component definition go? Even "after considering this a lot", he seems unaware of the fact that Tapestry gives you the choice. You can embed the component definition in the HTML template (an "implicit component" in Tapestry terms) or you can put it in a separate component specification (an "explicit component"). And this has been the case since the version of Tapestry prior to the current one. So that the primary reason given for not going with Tapestry is based on a faulty (or very out-of-date) understanding of the framework.

Slashdot like isn't it

Sun Java Creator for JSF

I would like to congratulate Sun for providing us Sun Java Creator 2.0. It is a very nice tool for working with JSF. If you haven't tried it, just do it. It makes the work with JSF very smooth and easy as pie. Not yet as good as Delphi but it will make its way, IMO. With Object, Data Binding included you can make a Web application in very easy way.I think if Netbeans 5/6 will support JSF (based on Java Creator) and also Swing (Matisse) in the same IDE, also those UML and BPEL (Netbeans 5.5 Preview), everyone will think twice to use Eclipse or any other IDE ;-)Good work Sun!Cheers,Lofi.Hybrid Enterprise Java Open Source Application Development?Business Layer : EJB, DODS, Hibernate, SpringPresentation Layer : XMLC/EAF, JSF, SwingSpecification Layer : POJI/POJO-> http://ejosa.sourceforge.net

tapestry

It is good to hear that Gavin considered tapestry. I've been using struts forever, and am trying to select my teams next front end technology for java applications.I remember back in the 90's when sun announced the J2ee roles- deployer, page designer, developer, etc, and would like to someday see us able to leverage html experts in our application dev process, but at this point (at least w/ the jsp renderer), this seems impossible in JSF, or at least not an improvement on struts. I would like WYSIWIG editors to work w/ my templates, and not require expensive java specific tooling to build the "web piece" of the applications. JSP tags, and JSF tags still seem to have too much of the "model" details in them, so will continue to be out of reach of my html prototyping teammates. One more thing. Tapestry allows my to unit test my Pages w/out needing a servlet engine. Will JSF give me that?(not sure yet)Thanks Gavin for allowing my Domain model programming to prosper w/ Hibernate!

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

Just got back from vacation :-)I'd like to make clear, that in defending JSF, I am not in ANY way trying to detract from other web frameworks that are out there, or say that we will never support anything other than JSF in Seam. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, JSF as much as any other.What I do believe is that JSF has been subject to a totally unnecessary level of negativity. It's a really nice approach, with some excellent features that other frameworks don't have (which of course does not deny that other frameworks also have their own unique and excellent features), and with a combination of features that most matched the philosophy of Seam.

To Rick H.

Mark, You made my Orange Juice come through my nose. Too funny! Thanks.

You're welcome. Glad I finally got one to work. But you can thank whomever mentioned this same thing in another thread.

Do you mean the guy who said (in the Facelets thread):

Everything is a conspiracy these days. It is one thing to be skeptical. It is quite another to live in a closet with alluminum foil on your head to block the evil gamma rays that the government is using to control your brain.Make a point why you feel JSF and/or Facelets sucks and then see how quickly Jacob and/or Steve (and/or Kito) rip it apart.I'd go with the conspiracy theory if I was you too. It is much safer to do that than opine about the technology where you will get shredded.So let me get this straight you don't like JSF and you don't like Faclets. So what do you like?I am sure there are not shortcommings or tradeoffs with it. eh?

I wonder who said that. He seems a bit angry. He needs to chill.

Seam seems like a good name

There's no doubt in my mind that you couldn't adapt Seam to work with other frameworks-- it just wouldn't be as seamless to the developer ;-)

So the Seam/JSF combination provides a more seamless approach. This begs the question: Why was the name of this framework chosen to be "Seam"?Seam has negative connotations, don't you think? A seam is usually something you want to hide. A visible seam is a sign of poor craftsmanship. Visible panty seams are a fashion "Don't" (according to my sister's Glamour magazines).

A line of junction formed by sewing together two pieces of material along their margins.
A similar line, ridge, or groove made by fitting, joining, or lapping together two sections along their edges. --Dictionary.com

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

I wonder if these pedantic debates about frameworks/patterns exist in the .NET world. IMHO, it's not the framework, its the tools that make you productive.With Sun's Free Java studio, JSF has got me interested. Drag and drop CRUD web-apps are a possibility now.Its a win/win for me, if I have a free tool that hides the complexity of a framework from me, yet gives me the hooks necessary to dig into the dirt if I have to.I don't see that fancy tool support with non-JSF frameworks. Maybe I'm missing something..?

Seam seems like a good name

It seems Seam sews the model to the view.

No offense but...

I also get incredibly depressed when I see this kind of thread over and over again on TSS ... focusing on personalities (and, quite often, personal attacks) instead of technology, useless speculations over what someone *thinks* instead of what they *said* or *did*, a myopic belief that if person X thinks technology A is "good" then person X must also believe that technology B is "bad", and so on ... sheesh.

Craig McClanahan

No offense but...

I completely agree. I don't understand why people insist on attacking others with gratuitous negative comments. Sadly, there will always be such people around. I always think, "if you don't like it, suggest how it could be improved."

Also, it's enough already with the accusations of hidden agendas, political intentions, being paid to have an opinion, etc.! If you are convinced that this is what's going on, and that TSS is the vehicle for these conspiracies, then why are you still reading TSS?

On the other hand, because this "noise" is a part of life, we should give even more value and praise to those who take the time to contribute comments that are actually constructive. This doesn't mean positive comments only -- you could say that a simple "XYZ framework rocks!" is no more constructive a comment than "XYZ framework sucks!" -- but at least an attitude that is open-minded enough for discussion of technical issues, leaving personal insults aside.And if someone writes a personal attack towards you, don't fall for the trap, resist retaliation, and be the bigger person! The rest of us will notice and will respect you for it.

*whew* that's enough, feel free to make fun of me, I can take it :-)

Seam seems like a good name

A line of junction formed by sewing together two pieces of material along their margins. A similar line, ridge, or groove made by fitting, joining, or lapping together two sections along their edges. --Dictionary.com

It seems Seam sews the model to the view.

JSF?

What pun?

Gavin seems to really dig JSF (pun intended).

I know you shouldn't have to explain a joke, but what pun?

I am going to venture a guess and go with:Gavin really gets/likes (digs - verb) JSF.Others say bad/sarcastic things (digs -noun) about JSF.

Gavin seems to really dig JSF ..Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol Coherence: Clustered Shared Memory for Java

I thought it was obvious. Perhaps it was too simple.

How can you suppose that

I wonder who said that. He seems a bit angry. He needs to chill.

No offense but...

And if someone writes a personal attack towards you, don't fall for the trap, resist retaliation, and be the bigger person! The rest of us will notice and will respect you for it.

Seam seems like a good name

It seems Seam sews the model to the view.

JSF?

What pun?

I guess I am partial to homographs as opposed to homophones.

Offense: JSF is awesome; no other web framework even comes close

I completely agree. I don't understand why people insist on attacking others with gratuitous negative comments. Sadly, there will always be such people around. I always think, "if you don't like it, suggest how it could be improved."

I wish there were more people who approached public discourse with this attitude. Sadly, part of the price we pay for free speech is putting up with people who behave like little boys at the beach that, rather than building their own sand castles, get some psychological benefit from kicking down the castles that others have built.

Also, it's enough already with the accusations of hidden agendas, political intentions, being paid to have an opinion, etc.! If you are convinced that this is what's going on, and that TSS is the vehicle for these conspiracies, then why are you still reading TSS?

Mere happenstance ... I've reduced my reading of TSS threads (due to the decreasing signal-to-noise ratio) from several times a day to a couple times per week. If you really want to see what *I* personally think is important, pay more attention to what I *do* (Java Studio Creator, Struts, MyFaces) than what I talk about. I wish other people who post here would take the same approach.

On the other hand, because this "noise" is a part of life, we should give even more value and praise to those who take the time to contribute comments that are actually constructive. This doesn't mean positive comments only -- you could say that a simple "XYZ framework rocks!" is no more constructive a comment than "XYZ framework sucks!" -- but at least an attitude that is open-minded enough for discussion of technical issues, leaving personal insults aside.And if someone writes a personal attack towards you, don't fall for the trap, resist retaliation, and be the bigger person! The rest of us will notice and will respect you for it.

No question that both positive and negative comments have their place here. I just (perhaps naively :-) wish that the comments could be based on technical issues, not personalities or politics, or even suppositionns about what particular people might think. Without that, we might as well have a People Magazine clone in cyberspace :-).

*whew* that's enough, feel free to make fun of me, I can take it :-)

As the target of more than a few personal attacks in this forum, I can tell you that you're making the right choice :-). Ignoring the personal attacks on ourselves is absolutely the right action. Judging the total percentage of noise, versus the total percentage of signal, is a different story altogether. Personally, I'm approaching the limit where I'm leaning towards "this site is a waste of my time" even if reading TSS is just what I do during my first couple of cups of coffee during the day.Craig

My guess is that the same project would have taken twice as long if I did it with Struts instead of JSF because it was a fairly rich application (custom sorting, post backs to populate list boxes, auto populate fields based on user actions, etc.). JSF is much more natural than Struts. I think WebWork, and Spring MVC are improvements on Struts Model 2 MVC, but I have been bitten by the event-driven bug. The only other framework I would consider using instead of JSF would be Tapestry. In short, I dig JSF.

Apparently it is popular to bash Sun and J2EE. JSF does not deserve it.
...
For me the killer stack is JSF + Hibernate + Spring. The verdict is still out on Tapestry (I need more experience with it). --Sept 04

Just in case you're thinking that doing it with Struts would have been easier, my estimate is that it would take at least twice the effort to create the Struts version of the simple JSF application you built here. To build the same example app in Struts you would need two action classes for the two buttons, each requiring its own set of action mappings. You would also need an action mapping to load the first page, at least assuming you were following the Model 2 recommendation. To mimic JSF's default error handling and validation you would have to configure Struts to use the validator framework or implement the equivalent in the validate method on an ActionForm. You would also have to either declare a DynaValidatorForm in the Struts config or create an ActionForm and override the validate method or use the subclass of the ValidatorForm with the hooks into validator framework. And finally, you would probably need to configure some forwards (possibly two sets for each action) or global forwards to be used by all the actions.

In addition to doubling your coding, Struts takes a lot more effort for new developers to learn. I know this because I've written both a Struts course and a JSF course and I've taught them both. Developers pick up JSF easily and struggle with Struts. I believe a lot more forethought went into the design of JSF than Struts. JSF just makes more logical sense; it is intuitive. Struts was collected and evolved. JSF was specified and created. JSF development is simply more productive than Struts development in my book. --Feb 05 IBM DeveloperWorks

Seam seems like a good name

It seems Seam sews the model to the view.

Finally! A substantive technical comment! :-) There is definitely a degree to which this is true, but it is also a bit simplistic as well. Let's consider a couple of viewpoints that actually exist in the real world.From the viewpoint of an object oriented purist, the separation of layers is definitely a concern. However, Seam seems :-) to actually *encourage* s separation of layers, by advocating the idea of using a stateful session bean as an adapter. Doing this naturally leads you towards *not* putting business logic into your view tier, and that seems like a good thing. The fact that you can layer your APIs completely, while still being able to bind view tier components to layer objects, is also cool.From the viewpoint of a developer simply trying to get his or her job done (and not caring if it conforms to purist object oriented principles :-), the fact that you can bind components directly to model tier values (without having to modify your model tier classes, or make them dependent on view tier APIs) is a huge win that Seam inherits automatically by virtue of utilizing JSF value binding expressions. No need to create value object classes, or any other sort of intermediate layering -- although, if you have such a thing, JSF and Seam are perfectly happy at dealing with those kinds of objects as well.Parenthetically, anyone who thinks that Java APIs should serve only the former audience and not the latter is being a bit arrogant, IMHO :-).Craig McClanahan

How can you suppose that

I wonder who said that. He seems a bit angry. He needs to chill.

Yes. Quite a nut-job. I hear he has quite a collection of "The Catcher in the Rye". (google that and "Mel Gibson")

Offense: JSF is awesome; no other web framework even comes close

I was never attacked personally (to my recollection) until I first wrote a blog declaring that JSF was a good framework. Then the attacks came out of the wood work.

Who cares?

A lot of people have the idea (that Tapestry's) idea of plain HTML and seperating out the component definitions (is a good idea). Frankly, after considering this a lot, I actually I find it nicer to put the component definitions in the page. The argument that but then you are mixing your semantic data definintion with your presentation does not hold water because it is 2006 guys and you are not suppose to be doing presentation in your HTML. You are suppose to be doing it in your CSS.

So wide of the mark

This is out of date in both directions. With Facelets you can do HTML based component tempaltes. ... Both Tapestry and JSF/Facelets let you move up and down the abstraction ladder.

Who cares?

A lot of people have the idea (that Tapestry's) idea of plain HTML and seperating out the component definitions (is a good idea). Frankly, after considering this a lot, I actually I find it nicer to put the component definitions in the page. The argument that but then you are mixing your semantic data definintion with your presentation does not hold water because it is 2006 guys and you are not suppose to be doing presentation in your HTML. You are suppose to be doing it in your CSS.

You can define components in the page with Tapestry. I don't think that Gavin is saying that JSF is better or that he has a hidden agenda. I just think he's just saying that he started using JSF and thought it was good. Nothing like low expectations... ;)If someone is truely evaluating JSF vs. Tapestry, they should look at something like: http://www.theserverside.com/articles/article.tss?l=JSFTapestry

Who cares?

A lot of people have the idea (that Tapestry's) idea of plain HTML and seperating out the component definitions (is a good idea). Frankly, after considering this a lot, I actually I find it nicer to put the component definitions in the page. The argument that but then you are mixing your semantic data definintion with your presentation does not hold water because it is 2006 guys and you are not suppose to be doing presentation in your HTML. You are suppose to be doing it in your CSS.

You can define components in the page with Tapestry. I don't think that Gavin is saying that JSF is better or that he has a hidden agenda. I just think he's just saying that he started using JSF and thought it was good. Nothing like low expectations... ;)If someone is truely evaluating JSF vs. Tapestry, they should look at something like: http://www.theserverside.com/articles/article.tss?l=JSFTapestry

So we are back to guessing what Gavin thinks... I thought we agreed not to channel Gavin. :o)Since we are channleling Gavin, I bet he thinks I don't want every whack job webframework fanatic breathing down my neck so I won't tell everyone I picked JSF becuase is: really darn good, the standard, has tons of components, and tons of tool support. It is frankly heads and shoulders above the rest both in technology and industry adoption. Hell its not perfect, but it is getting better and better.BTW Read the Seam documents, Gavin loves Facelets too.

Goodbye for now

JSF?

JSF is not as difficult as EJB2. After discovering it's secrets. It will make your life easier. there are many books out there. You can start from myfaces project and build your own application. Good luck.

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

JSF started with concepts from UIX (an Oracle internal framework) and Struts

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

JSF started with concepts from UIX (an Oracle internal framework) and Struts

Actually, that's what worries me about this standard: Struts was the first, but it's completly outdated now.

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

JSF is more like a Swing or Qt for webapps than Struts.People only knowing struts and not having programmed a normal component and event based user interface will have a hard time to shift towards JSF,

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

JSF is more like a Swing or Qt for webapps than Struts.People only knowing struts and not having programmed a normal component and event based user interface will have a hard time to shift towards JSF,

Is it fair to say JSF is more like ASP.NET than Struts?A major telco in Australia is re-writing its ASP.NET based online application in Java.Using JSF? No.The plain old Struts!

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

JSF is more like a Swing or Qt for webapps than Struts.People only knowing struts and not having programmed a normal component and event based user interface will have a hard time to shift towards JSF,

Is it fair to say JSF is more like ASP.NET than Struts?A major telco in Australia is re-writing its ASP.NET based online application in Java.Using JSF? No.The plain old Struts!

So? Struts is a very well established technology. JSF has not been around for that long. How is this evidence for or against JSF being like or unlike Swing or QT?

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

People only knowing struts and not having programmed a normal component and event based user interface will have a hard time to shift towards JSF, because some of the stuff looks familiar (central config files, page flow definitions) but are not, because they use different syntax and different concepts.

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

But to the original question, I am not too familiar with ASP.net, but given the fact that both follow similar goals JSF probably is closer to ASP.net than to Struts.

Java Web Development Can Be Easier

what component model?

what component model?

i just read through Rick Hightower's JSF tutorial at http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jsf1/ There's a controller, a model object, an xml config file, and a jsp page. Um, what's so different about this from a request/action based framework?

what component model?

what component model?

ok. i didn't see any component model in that tutorial though. basically just an <h:inputText> or <h:commandButton> instead of html. incidentally, i just was looking through the Oreilly JSF book and happened upon the discussion of Renderers, and there's an example of using java code to write a <form> element to the page. is this what people are doing with JSF?

Gavin seems to really dig JSF

Is it fair to say JSF is more like ASP.NET than Struts?A major telco in Australia is re-writing its ASP.NET based online application in Java.Using JSF? No.The plain old Struts!

So? Struts is a very well established technology. JSF has not been around for that long. How is this evidence for or against JSF being like or unlike Swing or QT?

Even if I like JSF, this is a political and technical decision, they had reasons to switch from ASP.net (probably one huge issue was the client side state saving, the other one maybe the lockin into windows).

I am not too familiar with ASP.net, but given the fact that both follow similar goals JSF probably is closer to ASP.net than to Struts.(with some advantages it already has over ASP.net, like opensource implementations, probably more components on the freeware opensource side, more choice in development tools, easier handling without tools, and server side state saving without a back button problem, to avoid streaming of hundreds of kilobytes state saving data over the net)

what component model?

i just read through Rick Hightower's JSF tutorial at http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jsf1/ There's a controller, a model object, an xml config file, and a jsp page. Um, what's so different about this from a request/action based framework?

Gavin seems to really dig JSF