Maybe that is because to create the JSF
specification, so many different parties had to come to a compromise.
Or maybe the problem is in the fact that the JavaServer Faces specification is created
using existing Java solutions and has inherited their weaknesses. For example,
JavaServer Pages technology, used by JSF to render pages, was very sound for its
time, but a JSP page can easily become an unintelligible mixture of HTML, standard
tags, custom tags, and EL expressions. Also, JSF has some older features from Struts,
like its navigation configured in a lengthy XML file. As a result, JSF technology is
difficult to comprehend, learn and work.
Or perhaps the problem with JSF is that it mimics so closely the Microsoft solution,
while the Java world has its own laws, and something that is good for Microsoft
might not be equally good here?
My point is that if we look at Tapestry, the framework that was never supported or
promoted by billionaire corporations, we might notice that it can easily compete with
the most recent versions of ASP.NET in many respects.
Features like code-behind in ASP.NET that allows the separation of code of the page
from its template, is an integral part of Tapestry from the very beginning of the
framework.
Pages:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37