7 Replies Latest reply on Mar 23, 2009 11:19 AM by Nicklas Karlsson

    RichFaces or ICEfaces?

    Behrang Saeedzadeh Newbie

      Any recommendations on using RichFaces vs ICEfaces? Which one is better? Or are there cases in which ICEfaces is a better option and other cases in which RichFaces is the way to go?


      Regards,
      Behrang

        • 1. Re: RichFaces or ICEfaces?
          infinity2heaven Novice

          I've played with Icefaces for a few days and was disappointed. A lot of these Ajax frameworks claim to be out of the box but they really aren't. The true out of the box solution is GWT-EXTJS. Don't fall prey for the flashy Demo websites. They always look good, like the women in car ads. Work on the code for yourself. The best way to judge is to take a working seam example (hotel booking is the best) and work on the same use case, replacing normal components with richfaces, say a sorting datatable and mutilists, etc. I saw that richfaces was relatively easier to use compared to icefaces. Icefacas was clumsy, had to read and by providing integration with several other frameworks, you end up configuring so much, just for seam. Besides, if you look at Icefaces datatable examples,to get a datatable working, you end up writing so much java code as backing beans!


          Seam supports Richfaces inherently, you get more support, that's what matters in the long run.



          • 2. Re: RichFaces or ICEfaces?
            Nicklas Karlsson Master

            I've been using ICEFaces for a while and I think it's quite nice. Sure, there is some setup to do but nowadays it's integrated into seam-gen so that's not an issue.


            As for code verbosity, I don't quite get your point. You can for most parts take a plain JSF view and replace h: with ice: counterparts and it works. More complex tags might require more configuring but you're not forced to use them until you feel comfortable.


            And I don't know about Seam supporting RichFaces inherently. Both RichFaces and ICEFaces are component sets / frameworks but I don't think Seam has that much wiring that is customized for either.


            Sure, Seam and RichFaces come from the same company so in case there is a steep mismatch on some concept, company policy might be more favourable for custom hacks making RichFaces work but I don't see that much of an issue there.

            • 3. Re: RichFaces or ICEfaces?
              Nicklas Karlsson Master

              I've been using ICEFaces for a while and I think it's quite nice. Sure, there is some setup to do but nowadays it's integrated into seam-gen so that's not an issue.


              As for code verbosity, I don't quite get your point. You can for most parts take a plain JSF view and replace h: with ice: counterparts and it works. More complex tags might require more configuring but you're not forced to use them until you feel comfortable.


              And I don't know about Seam supporting RichFaces inherently. Both RichFaces and ICEFaces are component sets / frameworks but I don't think Seam has that much wiring that is customized for either.


              Sure, Seam and RichFaces come from the same company so in case there is a steep mismatch on some concept, company policy might be more favourable for custom hacks making RichFaces work but I don't see that much of an issue there.

              • 5. Re: RichFaces or ICEfaces?
                Joshua Jackson Master

                Behrang Saeedzadeh wrote on May 01, 2008 05:41 AM:


                Any recommendations on using RichFaces vs ICEfaces? Which one is better? Or are there cases in which ICEfaces is a better option and other cases in which RichFaces is the way to go?

                Regards,
                Behrang


                I've tried both RF and Icefaces. I decided not to use Icefaces anymore since it is very heavy. I've tried Seam unit testing with Ice and it takes a long time to process. Besides, nowadays RF has more components than Ice. And the last thing is that RF is more seamless and easier to configure with Seam. I don't know any other reason not to use RF. :)

                • 6. Re: RichFaces or ICEfaces?
                  treespace Novice

                  That RichFaces is the default AJAX kit for Seam should ease the decision making process. If you're using the Eclipse plug-in (JBoss-Tools) the choice is even more clear: RichFaces.


                  On the other hand, those doing Spring development with NetBeans and Glassfish, might lean toward ICEFaces. 


                  One thing I would not worry about is one kit getting way ahead of the other. They can each adapt the features of the other in no time.

                  • 7. Re: RichFaces or ICEfaces?
                    Nicklas Karlsson Master

                    For a quick way to start using ICEfaces in JBoss Tools: generate a seamgen ICEfaces project, use the generated web.xml and then swap the richfaces jars for the ICEfaces ones.


                    I agree on the component set point, they tend to align over time. Besides, there is no advantage for one framework over another to have twice the number of components if you're not going to use any of the extra ones.