-
1. Re: Seam integration with non JSF based presentation framewo
hookomjj Sep 30, 2005 3:08 PM (in response to gavin.king)My honest opinion on the matter is quite lengthy, but you can read a bit here:
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/jhook/archive/2005/07/programmer_frie_1.html
or
http://hookom.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-on-programmer-pages.html
or
http://hookom.blogspot.com/2004/12/easing-project-development-with-css.html
To give you an example, the JBoss Seam Demo was done using this practice. I created HTML templates, using CSS for all the design work. The rest of Gavin's JSF pages were labeled with my CSS styles/classes and everything was now 'sexy'. As Gavin continued, he was able to create new pages that instantly looked like the rest of the pages, while only dealing with grainular JSF components-- no need to futz with HTML details in the presentation. When Gavin needed something changed, I just dove into the CSS file, separate from whatever he was doing within his JSF pages. Easy. I just don't get why others aren't doing this yet.
-- Jacob -
2. Re: Seam integration with non JSF based presentation framewo
werpu Oct 2, 2005 9:56 AM (in response to gavin.king)Facelets indeed add tapestry style templating within the JSF realm. I do not see Tapestry or web part templating as CSS killer or vice versa, they both cover different domains. Tapestry like templating just allows the componentization of web parts within a plain view or view with a simplified controller approach, while JSF tries to provide an entire component infrastructure in this area.
JSF simply tries to be a real UI library which also renders html, and basically succeeds.
One advantage of CSS is that it really forces you to use CSS if you are in the html realm, and that is a good thing. -
3. Re: Seam integration with non JSF based presentation framewo
hookomjj Oct 2, 2005 11:20 AM (in response to gavin.king)"werpu" wrote:
Facelets indeed add tapestry style templating within the JSF realm. I do not see Tapestry or web part templating as CSS killer or vice versa, they both cover different domains. Tapestry like templating just allows the componentization of web parts within a plain view or view with a simplified controller approach, while JSF tries to provide an entire component infrastructure in this area.
You are totally correct. If you get a chance, check out some of the UserTag and composition functionality with Facelets:
https://facelets.dev.java.net/nonav/docs/dev/docbook.html#taglib-create-source
Really, what JSF allows in combination with Facelets is that you really are blurrying th lines of what a 'page' is. Instead you can just pull any number of components in and re-use them in different views on any given request."werpu" wrote:
One advantage of JSF is that it really forces you to use CSS if you are in the html realm, and that is a good thing.
Yeah, it really is. Doing some of the demo work with JBoss's developers has proven this HTML/JSF and CSS separation to be extremely efficient in practice. -
4. Re: Seam integration with non JSF based presentation framewo
mnesarco Nov 20, 2007 11:56 AM (in response to gavin.king)"cjalmeida" wrote:
IMHO, throwing away the mature the HTML editors out there is/was a very bad decison of JSF ppl.
That's why I really like other presentation frameworks like Tapestry and Wicket.
So, will Seam be able to support those kind of tools?
The Seam-Wicket integration has been officially started at wicket-stuff (https://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/trunk/).
See this blog: http://www.ibstaff.net/fmartinez/?p=41 to get the binary and a convenient trivial example project.