Re: JSF
Re: JSF
- Subject: Re: JSF
- From: "Tonny Staunsbrink" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:56:17 +0100
On Dec 20, 2007 8:49 PM, Andrus Adamchik <
email@hidden> wrote:
Yeah... JSF is a mess. So is the underlying JSP. Tapestry can't keep
compatibility with itself for more than a year in a row, and hence
can't be used for enterprise applications that have a much longer
maintenance lifespan. And now with web development going all
_javascript_, the talent pool for potential open source WO challengers
is quickly draining. So WO is doing quite well by comparison and
might just keep claiming the best HTML component framework position
for years to come. Go figure :-)
Hmm, is that so much different than WO? I'm am currently unable to update from 5.3 to 5.4 because it will require changes.
True: WO does not update every year, but is that good? With the current state of affairs, I'm spending time working around ancient bugs and implementing features i might have gotten for 'free' in frameworks with more frequent releases.
This is not a defence for JSF (I don't see my self ever using that), but I am quite concerned of the future of WO, and I was once a great fan.
Cheers
Tonny
Andrus
On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:29 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>
http://www.jsftutorials.net/components/pic/relationship.jpg> I think this sums up JSF quite nicely :)
>
> ms
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSF
- From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
| References: | |
| | >JSF (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: JSF (From: Andrus Adamchik <email@hidden>) |