Latest posts for the topic "Icefaces usability"

Icefaces usability

darko_petreski — GMT

Hi All, I have made a research about icefaces. We are considering to use icefaces, but several things are in my mind. 1. On the icefaces.org page there are companies that are using icefaces. On their home pages, nobody is using icefaces. Does this mean that icefaces are not for public pages? (they have nasty url-s, all data is send via post, cannot bookmark them, no two step view by default, no books for designing the layout ...) 2. Are there any books for icefaces? 3. I have found out that it is possible to use facelets. But is this a good idea (it you cannot be sure if this project will end up dead in the future )? It is strange that jsf is called advanced technology, but it does not have "two step view" implemented !!!! Even the most poor php frameworks have this technology, essential for web development. Regards

Re:Icefaces usability

anl_lazarev — GMT

Hello. Your questions not related to icefaces. 1. JSF technology best use for web applications (rich applications), not for web-site and portal. Read info about JSF, most your question about JSF. 2. Try to search google for it. 3. Please, read JSF related resources: no one talk, that JSF is easy to use and easy to develop. And comparison vs Php incorrect.

Re:Icefaces usability

ted.goddard — GMT

Most corporate home pages are primarily to deliver static content, so it is generally not necessary to use a rich application framework (as anl_lazarev mentioned). There is not yet a book dedicated to ICEfaces (other than the developer's guide) but you may want to look at certain chapters in: Seam in Action Ajax in Practice Facelets has an excellent future - it's now incorporated into JSF 2.0 and we strongly recommend that you use it rather than JSP. The JSF lifecycle certainly has more than two steps. What are you looking for from the PHP lifecycle?

Re:Icefaces usability

michelle2 — GMT

ted.goddard wrote:

Most corporate home pages are primarily to deliver static content, so it is generally not necessary to use a rich application framework (as anl_lazarev mentioned). There is not yet a book dedicated to ICEfaces (other than the developer's guide) but you may want to look at certain chapters in: Seam in Action Ajax in Practice Facelets has an excellent future - it's now incorporated into JSF 2.0 and we strongly recommend that you use it rather than JSP. The JSF lifecycle certainly has more than two steps. What are you looking for from the PHP lifecycle?

1) Some portals use icefaces. 3) Java server faces is only now becomming popular with the advent of frameworks like icefaces and easy to use ide's. Handcoding jsf is trickier than jsp's. 4) Many java websites are still using struts and jsps, However the predominant framwork for customer facing pages is PHP not java, Java is more enterprise level, leasing or maintaing java capable servers is more costly than simple apache servers. And Finally How do you know? Sites use Icefaces in ways that may not be easily identified. For instance we write many of our own components. Also there are different none visual aspects to icefaces. Also the icefaces components are very customizable with css. Many companies like us use it on our very interactive internal pages. But mobile applications use icefaces too.

Re:Icefaces usability

anl_lazarev — GMT

Hmm... About unfriendly urls: it does matter if you need index web pages and make it bookmarkable. But for web Application (when page state and it content depended on user interaction and have complex lifecycle) these things not so important, and even not applicable. And if you need, you can use some tricks for url rewrite (PrettyFaces extension, for example).

Re:Icefaces usability

rainwebs — GMT

Meanwhile there is a book about ICEfaces ;-).