<SNIP> On Apr 2, 2005 6:33 AM, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ..... > If you see how the form validation and type conversion happens in JSF > I cant really see how anyone can argue that this isn't progress. </SNIP>
This is like arguing that a semi-truck is an improvement over the automobile because it has 20 gears. If you want a semi-truck it is. If you don't, it is not. There is a lot you have to take with that validation and type conversion which makes the comparison irrelevant and even perhaps nonsensical, Mark. If you want an event based, page-controlled, architecture, you do get certain benefits. The biggest benefits are that you can use tools, editors, etc. to a greater extent. No one says, I think, that JSF is not a viable alternative that has a place in the market. That never has been anyone's position and your notes like all those in support of JSF before that do the same thing you do simply are replying to a STRAW MAN. The detractors do not care if there is JSF or Shale. The problem is that this very different idea wants to take the Struts name when it is not Struts. There is a FOX in the HEN HOUSE. This is, so far as I can see, the only reason JSF gets press here. So, while comparisons are nice and even important, they have nothing to do with what you call the "religous" [sic] commentary. Jack -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
