So, it's clear that we all think the article is pretty shallow and pretty
much wrong on many counts. Is it worth saying anything about it? Does
anyone read TSS?
___
Kito D. Mann | @kito99 | Author, JSF in Action
Web Components, Polymer, JSF, PrimeFaces, Java EE, and Liferay training and
consulting
Virtua, Inc. | virtua.tech
JSFCentral.com | @jsfcentral | knowesis.io
<
http://knowesis.io/web/webcomponents> - fresh Web Components info
+1 203-998-0403
* Listen to the Enterprise Java Newscast: *http://
<
http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/JSFNewscast/>enterprisejavanews.com
<
http://ww.enterprisejavanews.com>*
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Neil Griffin <neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org
> wrote:
> The article does not provide any evidence to support the claim "Another
> key problem with JSF is that it doesn't work well with other standard Java
> libraries with the Portal API being one”.
>
> JSF portlet bridges have existed in open source for over 10 years, and the
> requirements for a JSF 1.2 + Portlet 2.0 bridge was standardized with JSR
> 329.
>
> While it is true that there were no JSF 2.x + Portlet 2.0 standards from
> the JCP, JBoss Portlet Bridge and Liferay Faces Bridge were developed as
> open source and have been available since 2012.
>
> Now that JSR 378 is underway, we will have standardized support for JSF
> 2.2 + Portlet 3.0.
>
> — Neil
>
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Bauke Scholtz <balusc_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Article gave me too much the impression they had nothing exciting to write
> and just tried to attract traffic by reviving an old debate. Only the
> "Primitive Ajax Support" part is new to me, most likely triggered by SPA
> hype these days. Well, my answer to that would be
> http://stackoverflow.com/q/7108668/157882
>
> Cheers, B
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann_at_virtua.com> wrote:
>
>> It's really a poorly written article; the points are very weak.
>> Especially the point about it "lacking flexibility". I have worked on quite
>> a few projects, and never once has there been a need for another warning
>> level. That's a really bad example; the fact that JSF is flexible is one of
>> the #1 reasons to use it.
>>
>> It looks to me like Cameron's thinking about JSF has evolved. He wrote
>> in a previous tutoria
>> <http://www.theserverside.com/tutorial/Creating-a-single-page-inteface-SPI-with-JSF-Facelets-Ajax-and-HTML5>l
>> about how to build single-page apps with JSF, and that book.
>>
>> At any rate, does anyone actually read TheServerSide.com
>> <http://theserverside.com> anymore?
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Kito D. Mann | @kito99 | Author, JSF in Action
>> Web Components, Polymer, JSF, PrimeFaces, Java EE, and Liferay training
>> and consulting
>> Virtua, Inc. | virtua.tech
>> JSFCentral.com <http://jsfcentral.com/> | @jsfcentral | knowesis.io
>> <http://knowesis.io/web/webcomponents> - fresh Web Components info
>> +1 203-998-0403
>>
>> * Listen to the Enterprise Java Newscast: *http://
>> <http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/JSFNewscast/>enterprisejavanews.com
>> <http://ww.enterprisejavanews.com/>*
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Cagatay Civici <cagatay.civici_at_gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I came across a new anti-JSF article.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.theserverside.com/feature/Five-drawbacks-to-choosing-JSF-as-your-web-application-framework
>>>
>>> Sadly, I cannot find a way to comment.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Cagatay Civici
>>> PrimeFaces Lead
>>> PrimeTek Informatics
>>> www.primefaces.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>