• 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 all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Tim Cooke
Sheriffs:
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Henry Wong
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • salvin francis
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Frits Walraven
Bartenders:
  • Jj Roberts
  • Carey Brown
  • Scott Selikoff

Migration from woodstock to richfaces

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Since, Sun and/or Netbeans have officially announced their tie up with Richfaces, I am reconsidering going further with woodstock components for additional JSF development.
First, woodstock components are way less capable of providing a rich user experience similar to richfaces, not to mention a4j. Second visual web development framework sucks for complex web apps having custom components and other third party components.

However, one of my projects is already live and running fine with the visual web framework , I have a list of projects lined up that perform similar CRUD operations. A decision that I have to make is whether to sacrifice rich user interface and go with my current framework or create each project in a different framework(richfaces). I personally prefer the latter. I wanted any suggestions and pointers on this.

Also, related to overall JSF development , is it wise to have one web app with over 250 pages and backing beans or different modular web apps sharing common data via cookies and/or url rewriting? or any other ideas?
 
Greenhorn
Posts: 12
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
From maintenance perspective wouldn't it be easy to have everything under the same roof. If there is a compelling reason to split it into d different module with another framework/technology the you may opt to do so. My 2 cents.
 
Kavita Tipnis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 177
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have different jsf web apps and I am sharing user info using CAS.
I found this to be manageable and also got rid of the visual web framework,
because it crashes when you have loads of heavy duty jsf going on.
 
You showed up just in time for the waffles! And this tiny ad:
the value of filler advertising in 2020
https://coderanch.com/t/730886/filler-advertising
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic