>
> > 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...
I just wanted to add that pretty much every other component library out
there supports Facelets out-of-the-box at this point (including commercial
ones).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kito D. Mann (kmann_at_virtua.com)
Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info