• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

JSF: Expected differences between implementations

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Can we expect a lot of UI Component differences between each of the different implementations of JSF that come along? What I mean is, will each implementation have the possibility of created a different Tag for, say, a Textfield? Or does the specification only allow for one type of tag definition.
I am really concerned about this. I don't undestand why Sun could't make a base implenentation that anyone can use (license free) and then just have the specification there for anyone that wants to extend what is already available. I am not excited about the fact that each implementation could have all different UI Components for simply rendering HTML.
Correct me if anything I stated was inaccurate.
Thanks.
 
Author
Posts: 234
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Greg,
Good question. The spec standardizes the base set of HTML renderers, the base set of UIComponents and the base set of JSP Actions that tie them together. So any implemnetation of JSF will have to have an action <command_button...> and that tag will have to connect the UICommand to the Button renderer so if you stick to the standard set of stuff then you will be portable.
However there is great likely hood that many of the vendors will provide a lot of add on components, renderers and custom actions. Here is a link to Oracle's site that lays out there commitment to JSF and discusses a bit of their plans. The interesting bit is about ADF UIX which was/is oracle's webframework. They are recasting ADF UIX to be an extension to JSF. If you use the extensions you will obviously be tied to ADF UIX but there will be some compelling extensions.
I think all this is good for the first round of JSF. Over time the community will converge on what is important to standardize and what can be left to innovation. Time will tell what extensions become standard...
 
Gregg Bolinger
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well, I jave noticed one major difference between the beta and final. They removed the _ from the component tags. So instead of

It is now
 
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic