There is a difference between specifying CSS attributes and creating a liquid CSS design. The later involves a complete separation of style and content where a web page or JSP becomes a series of <div> tags that flow; a single style sheet can be used to change the look and feel of the entire application. In a liquid CSS design, tables are only used for displaying tabular data.
In the "old days", complex web interfaces were based on an elaborate layout of tables, nested tables and nested tables within nested tables. In liquid CSS design, the creation of complex web interfaces is much simpler and far more elegant. If you look at a page created with nested tables and another created with liquid CSS design there is a definite aesthetic difference. Also, because <div>s are easily manipulated, rich interfaces based on AJAX are much easier to create using <div> tags. In JSF, if the layout is restricted to panel grids and panel groups, the design will be table based. In theory, the advantage of this approach is that multiple renderers (HTML, Swing, etc.) can make the application functional in different contexts. In a JSF page, the <f:view> tag can contain <div> and other HTML tags. So in theory, you could have a JSF application that encompasses liquid CSS design. I'd like to ask a question of the JSF experts who monitor this list: Is it considered "bad form" to use <div> tags within the <f:view> tag? Like many of the subscribers to this list, I have been struggling with the decision of whether or not to make the jump to JSF. After reading the Geary/Hortstmann book and many articles (http://www.jamesholmes.com/JavaServerFaces/), and reviewing the work being done on Shale (http://struts.apache.org/shale/), I think it is time. The promise of JSF is real. As someone who started out mapping form fields by using CGI and Perl, I am very thankful for the contributions made by those who created and maintained Struts. I sincerely hope that Struts can find a good home in the country where it can run and play in the warm sunshine. Mike --- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/14/05, pc leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ronald, > > > > I am a bit confused that MyFaces and Shale both implements JSF. > > Why you need to use both? why not use one of them? > > What about Struts-Faces? It integrates Struts and JSF. > > Do you consider it? > > > MyFaces implements JSR 127 (JavaServer Faces), and now the community > is also offering added-value components. > > Struts Shale *does not* implement JSR 127. Shale requires that you > provide a JSF implementations, such as MyFaces or the Sun Reference > Implementation. > > Shale builds on JSF to provide "front controller" features that many > of us are accustom to using, along with many other goodies like > integration with Commons Valdiator, Spring dependency injection, a > testing framework, and a dialog (wizard) manager. > > For more see the Struts Shale homepage. > > * http://struts.apache.org/shale/index.html > > Struts Faces can be a convenient bridge to help existing application > use JSF along side conventional server pages. But, if you are > developing a new application, and want to use JSF, you'd be better off > trying Shale. > > -Ted.. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
