> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard.Ratta_at_Sun.COM [mailto:Richard.Ratta_at_Sun.COM]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:00 PM
> To: dev_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
> Subject: Re: Supporting facelets
>
> I don't think it is a burden to just call the annotation
> processor with a different factory. This is very simple and
> costs just another target in a builld file, if you will.
Right. It just seemed that (potentially) many apt runs seemed a bit
heavy, but I have no real qualms. It *is* build time, so I doubt time
is too much of a factor given the small number of people who will be
running it.
> In addition given that we have no way to qualify facelet
> support at the moment providing this facelet tld and other
> artifacts by default would mean that our delivery mechanism
> would have to prune out pieces that we cannot qualify.
Leaving support out, in my opinion, will hobble the adoption of the
library. From discussions I've had on mailing lists, irc, and forums,
Facelets is far away the most popular alternate ViewHandler for JSF,
with the first question for many upon hearing of a new component lib
being "Can I use it with Facelets?" Tomahawk is probably the earliest
and best example of this. To make people jump through hoops to use a
library can be pretty off putting. We'll probably live with it, since
we "need" the sortable table, but it sure would be nice if it were
already baked in. I see nothing wrong with noting in the docs that
Facelets support has not been tested, verified, etc. If it comes down
to it, as an open source project, there are those familiar with Facelets
that could handle that part of the process...
-----
Jason Lee, SCJP
Senior Software Engineer
http://www.iec-okc.com