Tapestry vs JSF: JSF for nonbelievers: JSF component development

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tapestry vs JSF: JSF for nonbelievers: JSF component development

Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
I'm not trying to be a fanboy (but I'm a Tapestry fan) nor a troll, but  
the following article about developmento of JSF components really helped  
me to figure out what JSF is, specially when compared to Tapestry 5:  
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jsf4/. The author is  
trying to stop FUD that says that writing JSF components
is hard. Then I remembered how much time I spent trying to write my first  
T5 component (less than 5 minutes after I figured out where I had to put  
its template).

I'm learning JSF to do a presentation comparing different Java web  
frameworks. I'm not liking it, as it's too similar to Struts. ;) At first  
I thought JSF was similar to Tapestry than it really is, and Tapestry  
looks way better.

What do you think JSF got better than Tapestry 5? The other side of the  
question is so easy that I don't need to question. :) I want to do a fair,  
passionless comparison between frameworks.

Thiago

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Tapestry vs JSF: JSF for nonbelievers: JSF component development

Kolesnikov, Alexander      GNI
When people say that something is hard or, on reverse, easy, it is
always subjective and basically says nothing. Hard or easy compared to
what?

The important thing is that in JSF, to create a component, one should be
pretty well familiar with the guts of the framework. As this article
shows, such an adventure will involve registering component with
faces-config.xml, implementing a renderer, encoding, decoding stuff,
creating a custom tag...

All this might be easy compared to something, but it is infinitely
harder than creating a similar functionality in T5. Again, this is
relative to which component is created. There probably can be a
component, creation of which in Tapestry will be as hard as it is in
JSF, but in general, in Tapestry you do not need to know much more for
crearing custom components than for creating ordinary pages, and that
makes a huge difference.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 27 September 2007 05:24
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Tapestry vs JSF: JSF for nonbelievers: JSF component
development


I'm not trying to be a fanboy (but I'm a Tapestry fan) nor a troll, but

the following article about developmento of JSF components really helped

me to figure out what JSF is, specially when compared to Tapestry 5:  
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jsf4/. The author is  
trying to stop FUD that says that writing JSF components
is hard. Then I remembered how much time I spent trying to write my
first  
T5 component (less than 5 minutes after I figured out where I had to put

its template).

I'm learning JSF to do a presentation comparing different Java web  
frameworks. I'm not liking it, as it's too similar to Struts. ;) At
first  
I thought JSF was similar to Tapestry than it really is, and Tapestry  
looks way better.

What do you think JSF got better than Tapestry 5? The other side of the

question is so easy that I don't need to question. :) I want to do a
fair,  
passionless comparison between frameworks.

Thiago

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown.  This email transmission may contain confidential information.  This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom it is intended even if addressed incorrectly.  Please delete it from your files if you are not the intended recipient.  Thank you for your compliance.  Copyright 2007 CIGNA
==============================================================================


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]