On 8/5/05, David Thielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi; > > Ok, that brings up this question. If we are creating a portlet and it has to > run on every portal, is Shale+JSF as easy to install and portable as just > JSF?
Not yet ... but that's a definite goal. There are still some spots where the code is specific to the servlet API which need to be shaken out, but I plan to do that *after* a 1.0.0 milestone release. > We're willing to live with more pain during development to make the > final product as easy as possible to install and totally portable. > Part of the challenge here is that the JSF 1.0 spec doesn't go quite all the way towards seamless portability across JSR-168 compliant environments. I've used the jsf-portlet bridge code that is available in the JSF RI's java.net project with good success, but primarily with Sun's tools (and pluto). And the MyFaces integration with portlets is "similar but different", so it'll take a bit of work at the framework level to settle all this out. > And same question on Spring? Spring integration is a breeze ... and is a feature I didn't mention. If you include Spring in your app, Shale has an adapter that makes the managed beans facility automatically use Spring's bean factory if there is no managed beans definition, so you can use Spring to create and configure all your instances (if you like). And you can use standard JSF value binding and method binding expressions to trigger creation of Spring beans, too. > Thanks - dave Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
