Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #10955 > unrolled thread

Volunteer for Java Development

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2011-12-22 09:25 -0800
    Re: Volunteer for Java Development Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-22 14:40 -0800
      Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-22 21:59 -0800
        Re: Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2011-12-23 03:46 -0800
          Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-23 09:15 -0800
            Re: Volunteer for Java Development "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com> - 2011-12-24 10:47 +1100
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-24 12:33 -0400
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-24 10:06 -0800
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-27 03:29 +0000
                  Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-27 13:28 -0400
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-27 18:13 -0500
                  Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 01:07 -0800
                    Re: Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 22:37 -0800
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-27 18:09 -0500
            Re: Volunteer for Java Development Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-23 20:54 -0800
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-12-24 00:18 -0800
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-24 11:09 -0400
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2011-12-24 07:26 -0800
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-27 00:53 +0000
                  Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-26 22:23 -0400
                  Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-27 18:24 -0500
                    Re: Volunteer for Java Development Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-12-27 16:13 -0800
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-24 10:10 -0800
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2011-12-25 06:45 -0800
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-27 18:16 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#11016

On 12/26/2011 7:53 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 11-12-24 12:54 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:15:13 -0800 (PST), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
>>> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>>
>>>> Struts is obsolete. Use JSF.
>>>
>>> I was told JSF has hugely more overhead.
>>
>> What kind of overhead?
>>
>> 4) API complexity?
>>
>> All of the web framework APIs are large
>
> No. Stripes is pretty small.
>
> I've never used JSF, so i have no first-hand evidence. By way of
> second-hand evidence, i see a lot of questions on forums from people who
> are struggling with some aspect of JSF. I very rarely see questions like
> that for action-style frameworks like Struts or Stripes, despite the
> fact that such frameworks are very widely used.

JSF is a true JCP product for good and bad.

It can be a bit complex to learn to use properly.

JSF + no will to spend time learning the tool = disaster

But when one has done the necessary studies, then it is not
difficult to use.

> Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't JSF (like other
> component-style frameworks) make it harder to precisely control the HTML
> than action-style frameworks? The last project i did used an
> action-style framework. Our web designers sat down and cranked out
> finely-tuned HTML for the site, taking care to make it lean, semantic,
> portable across browsers, SEO-friendly, etc. We programmers could pick
> up their static mockups and made minimal changes to make the appropriate
> bits dynamic - replacing a hardcoded value with a ${}, an <input> with a
> <webframework:input>, and so on. Can you do that with JSF?

I would say that it depends on the JSF components you decide to use.

If you use the simple 1:1 JSF component-HTML tags, then you can
design the HTML as you want.

An using facelets can actually make the XHTML files be valid and
editable by HTML people XHTML.

If you use some more high level JSF components (incl. extra non
standard components), then you  loose control over the HTML (but
may be able to get something done faster).

Your choice.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11017

In article <4efa53cb$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj 
says...

> JSF + no will to spend time learning the tool = disaster
> 
> But when one has done the necessary studies, then it is not
> difficult to use.

The thing I like most about JSF is the relationship between the views 
and the data models. Makes it very easy to figre out what's going on, 
even if you're looking at code you've never seen before.


-- 
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10989

On Friday, December 23, 2011 8:54:30 PM UTC-8, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:15:13 -0800 (PST), Lew <lewb...@gmail.com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
> 
> >Struts is obsolete.  Use JSF.
> I was told JSF has hugely more overhead.  

Than Spring?  Not in my observation.  JSF is much easier to use.

What kind of overhead were you _told_ that JSF introduces?

I have always found it to radically accelerate development, by something like five to one compared to other flows I've used except for Struts, but with much more expressive power and greatly reduced deployment effort.  The XHTML variant works even better than the JSP variant.

Really, JSF is a _tour de force_, and with the Tomahawk library there's little you cannot accomplish in the UI.  (Other libraries also exist for JSF.)

Plus it's part of the JSF standard.  Actually it's any _other_ framework that would have to be considered "overhead", since JSF already comes with.  Someone told you exactly backwards.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10995

Hi All,

Any suggestion for project name where I can contribute?

regards, Amit J.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11015

On 12/23/2011 11:54 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:15:13 -0800 (PST), Lew<lewbloch@gmail.com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> Struts is obsolete.  Use JSF.
> I was told JSF has hugely more overhead.

Latest version of JSF is bigger than a web framework from
10 years ago.

But I don't think it is bigger than other current "big"
frameworks.

And since JSF is a spec with multiple implementations, then
it dos not make much sense to talk about the performance of JSF
as such.

So no hugely more overhead.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web