Related
I am starting out a new project that involves the use of JSF 2.0.
From my initial reading, the Mojarra and Apache Implementation of the
project covers the basic components that you will need.
But I know that user's would seek gui with better presentation such as
panel tab, accordion, slider etc... Currently, there are other implementation that I am seeing, the Primefaces, RichFaces and Icefaces.
But I cant find a good article that discusses which among the three are the best.
I have used Spring MVC before but I use JqueryUI for those widget.
Now that I am into component based framework, I would like to use the best JSF Implementation.
I would like to know metrics such as performance/interoperability/ease of use/support.
Sorry if my question might be vague but I would like to hear comments before I select my JSF Vendor Implementation.
Thanks.
I happily use Primefaces as it is by far the most rich set of open source JSF2 controls out there, but they can be infuriatingly buggy at times. It is best to operate under the assumption that component X will not work correctly in a dialog without heavy tinkering.
I would avoid Primefaces if you operate in a development environment with strict UI design requirements as getting everything exactly the way you would like it to look and operate may not be a possibility.
Further I would avoid Primefaces if you are not comfortable with JSF, HTML, JQuery, JavaScript and CSS as you will need a good bit of JQuery trickery to work around the bugs that crop up.
But on that note, I haven't run into a problem yet that a couple lines of custom Javascript haven't fixed for me, and I have one of the most feature rich applications I have ever wrote in the shortest amount of time.
The speed of development is very fast in this area, and any article gets outdated quickly. I used Primefaces for a new project almost a year ago, because at that time it was the only one that was fully compatible with JSF 2 (both Icefacves and Richfaces have had JSF 2 compatible releases in the meantime).
Primefaces has a lot of powerful components that automatically use AJAX, and even more were added in version 3. Unfortunately this focus on new features led to a lot of bugs, but the developers said they would focus on bugfixing after release 3; I can't say anything about the current status since I left the project after 3 months.
There is one thing against Icefaces: a lot of components and functionality are only available in the Enterprise version, which is commercial, not free (but that might as well be a good thing since you get support etc. if your project can afford it).
Why not play with all three libs for a short time, build a simple project and see how you are getting along with either of them. My personal taste prefers Primefaces, but I haven't tried Richfaces since it turned JSF 2 ready.
I have successfully used JBoss RichFaces on a large online B2B store. RichFaces is a quite good framework for building webapps Web 2.0 style, and have easy to use tags that help you develop features faster.
I do not have any metrics regarding performance between RichFaces and IceFaces/Primefaces, but the ease of development should be approximately the same. All three frameworks have similar components, and they are all working towards more and more logic on the client via JavaScript.
At the current state of the JSF libraries, I am fairly sure that you will be happy with whichever framework your choose. IMO RichFaces and IceFaces are the two frameworks that have been around the longest, and i would put my bet on one of these two. IIRC both frameworks have key developers in the JSF design group as well.
As a general rule of thumb, these framework should work interoperably, but I wouldn't mix and match between them. The frameworks are really ment to be used on their own.
EJB achieved many improvements in 3.x versions, Spring is also commonly used and version 3 is a good alternative.
There are many articles on web, but no exact comparison about ejb3x versus spring3x.. Do you have any ideas about them, in real world examples which one is better at which conditions?
For example, we want to separate db and server, which means our application will be on a server, our database will be in another server.. EJB remoting vs Cluster4Spring etc ?
Doing everyting #Annotation is always good? configuration never needed?
For your use case where the application runs on one server and the database runs on another, the choice between EJB and Spring is irrelevant. Every platforms supports this, be it a Java SE application, a simple Servlet container like Tomcat or Jetty, PHP, Ruby on Rails, or whatever.
You don't need any kind of explicit remoting for that. You just define a datasource, provide the URL where your DB server lives and that's it.
That said, both EJB and Spring Beans do make it easier to work with datasources. They both help you defining a datasource, injecting it in beans and managing transactions associated with them.
Of the two, EJB (and Java EE in general) is more lightweight and adheres more to the convention over configuration principle. Spring requires more verbosity to get the same things and depends a lot on XML files which can quickly become very big and unwieldy. The flip side of the coin is that Spring can be less magical and you might feel more in control after having everything you want spelled out.
Another issue is the way EJB and Spring are developed.
EJB is free (as in free beer), open-source and non-proprietary. There are implementations of EJB being made by non profit organizations (Apache), open source companies (Redhat/JBoss) and deeply commercial closed source enterprises (IBM). I personally would avoid the latter, but to each his own.
Spring on the other hand is free and open-source, but strongly proprietary. There is only one company making Spring and that's Springsource. If you don't agree with Rod, then tough luck for you. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but a difference you might want to be aware of.
Doing everyting #Annotation is always good? configuration never needed?
It's an endless debate really. Some argue that XML is hard to maintain, others argue that annotations pollute an otherwise pure POJO model.
I think that annotating a bean as being an EJB stateless bean (#Stateless) or a JPA entity (#Entity) is more cleanly done using annotations. Same goes for the #EJB or #Inject dependency injections. On the other hand, I prefer JPQL named queries to be in XML files instead of annotations, and injections that represent pure configuration data (like a max value for something) to be in XML as well.
In Java EE, every annotation can also be specified in XML. If both the annotation and the XML equivalent are present, the XML overrules the annotation. This makes it really convenient to start with an annotation for the default case, but override it later via XML for a specific use case.
The current preference in Java EE seems to be more towards (simple) annotations combined with a large amount of convention over configuration.
The real question you should be asking is CDI/EJB or Spring
It's often not Spring vs EJB, but Spring vs Java EE. EJB itself compares to Spring Beans. Both of them are a kind of managed beans running inside a container (the EJB container resp. Spring container).
Overall the two technologies are rather similar. Reza Rahman did a great comparison between the two a while back.
EJB's are more advantageous because of standardization. If you are working with a lightweight application I think going with Spring is fine but if you expect that your application will be big and will require lots of memory access and data connections access you may consider starting your development with EJBs. The main reason being clustering and load balancing are built into the EJB framework.
In an EJB environment, when an EAR ('E'nterprise 'AR'chive) is deployed, it may be deployed with multiple EJBs beans that each could have a specific purpose. Let say you wrote a bean for user management and another bean for product management. Maybe one day you find that your user services way exceed your products access services, and you want to move your user bean to a different server on a different machine. This can actually be done in runtime without altering your code. Beans can be moved between servers and databases, to accomodate clustering and load/data balancing without affecting your developers or your users because most of it can be configured at the deployment level.
Another reason for supporting a standard is knowing that most large third party vendors will likely support it resulting in less issues when integrating with new standard/service/technology - and let's face it, those come out like new flavours of ice-cream. And if it is in a public specification new start-up companies or kind developers can create an open-source version.
http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2005/06/29/spring-ejb3.html
It is most unfortunate that even the most intelligent designers or programmers cannot predict which of their features may or may not be embraced by the development community which is the main reason software becomes bloated... Java EE is definitely that!
Choose one or the other, but not both.
My personal preference is Spring. I've used on projects with great success for the past six years. It's as solid as any software out there.
Spring can work with EJBs if you choose to have them in your app, but I don't believe the reverse is true.
I would recommend separate physical machines for web, app, and database servers if you can afford it.
Spring can work with several remoting options, including SOAP and REST web services. A comparison of Spring beans with EJB is beyond the scope of this question. I don't see what it has to do with your implementation. If you use Spring POJO services they're in-memory rather than requiring another network hop like remote EJBs. Think of Fowler's Law of Distributed Objects: "Don't". Only introduce latency with good reason.
I'd mention unit testing here.
In common web application (controller->service->data->...->view) EJB and Spring both provide similar result, but spring offers easier testing.
In my humble experience the way you develop is different in couple of aspects:
Unit test (spring wins). In spring its done pretty stright forward, while in ejb you have to use Arqullian with ShrinkWrap (sic!) which is slow to run on every build.
Persistence (ejb wins). In spring there is struggle around it, i.e. google "how to autowire persistence in entity listener" http://bit.ly/1P6u5WO
Configuration (ejb wins). As newbie coming to spring from ejb I was surprised by swarm of annotations and .xml files.
EJB 3.1 is the best while being the standard for Java 6 EE applications.
Spring still does not support Java 6 CDI(weld) also still depends a lot on XML configuration. EJB 3.1 is powerful and smart.
I think that Spring 3.1 doesn't need any XML configuration. You have the option to use annotations for configuration.
I started digging into the liferay 6.x ServiceBuilder framework and really liked its code generation approach. A simple service.xml file can generate ready to use powerful services without even writing a single line of code.
I also tried looking into AndroMDA which can generate similar services from the UML model, which sounds even more interesting since it will link my business model directly without me needing to learn a new xml config for service.xml (in case of liferay ServiceBuilder)
now I am in the process of deciding which tool should I use. Based on your experience with any of these tools Please let me know what are Pros/Cons of using any of this library,
I am interested to know these aspects, along with your own thoughts
Which is better to keep my development more productive in long term.
If I use ServiceBuilder will I be able to use the services outside portal env (lets say running same service from a non-portal app server.
Is UML driven approach always good or there are some practical cons/challenges of it.
Do you know of any other code generation library which is better than these two for liferay 6.x development? I also checked these SO Threads
Do You Use Code Generators
Java Code Generation
Following few problems I have experienced with Servicebuilder (I am using liferay 5.2.3) :
Not able to make use ORM framework. There is no way to generate
relations among objects. Because of this I am effectively working
just object mapper. It is not generating onetomany kind of relations
Can not use basic object oriented things like inheritance with domain or services
It is quite hard to write unit test cases
I still didn't understand what is the need of complex domain structure
I feel the code it is generating can be quickly written using an IDE
But definitely it has its own benefits like Egar said, it is specifically made for Liferay. So it can quickly generate everything that is needed for liferay. I heard in latest versions of liferay few of above problems are fixed.
Overall it depends on your requirement. If you need more control over your ORM layer and you have complex business logic which needs quite a lot of unit testing, go for normal spring services which can be exposed as webservices or REST services to your portlets.
Otherwise service builder is also good for simple portlets. Other approach could be using both. All complex services as a separate project and simple ones with service builder.
There is an important fact that you should be aware of. ServiceBuilder has been used to help building the portal itself and it is tightly integrated into it. You cannot use it outside of Liferay...I mean it probably could be taken and modified for general usage, but I doubt it would make sense.
Most importantly because Portal and each plugin that you are developing have their own web application context in a servlet container - each has its own classloader. Plugins are using Portal classloader and portal services, etc. etc.
Simply put, ServiceBuilder generated code and spring context can exist only if there is a webapp/ROOT/ which is Liferay Portal with portal classloader etc.
AndroMDA is a MDA framework for general usage. I don't know it much, so that I'm rather not going to make comparisons. The power of ServiceBuilder is that it is not a framework for general usage - the more powerful it is for liferay plugin development.
Yesterday I saw a presentation on Java Server Faces 2.0 which looked truly impressive, even though I am currently a happy ASP.NET MVC / jQuery developer. What I liked most about JSF was the huge amount of AJAX-Enabled UI components which seem to make development much faster than with ASP.NET MVC, especially on AJAX-heavy sites. Integration testing looked very nice too.
Since the presentation only emphasized the advantages of JSF, I'd like to hear about the other side as well.
So my questions are:
What are the main disadvantages of Java Server Faces 2.0?
What might make a JSF developer consider using ASP.NET MVC instead of JSF?
JSF 2.0 disadvantages? Honestly, apart from the relative steep learning curve when you don't have a solid background knowledge about basic Web Development (HTML/CSS/JS, server side versus client side, etc) and the basic Java Servlet API (request/response/session, forwarding/redirecting, etc), no serious disadvantages comes to mind. JSF in its current release still needs to get rid of the negative image it gained during the early ages, during which there were several serious disadvantages.
JSF 1.0 (March 2004)
This was the initial release. It was cluttered with bugs in both the core and performance areas you don't want to know about. Your webapplication didn't always work as you'd intuitively expect. You as developer would run hard away crying.
JSF 1.1 (May 2004)
This was the bugfix release. The performance was still not much improved. There was also one major disadvantage: you can't inline HTML in the JSF page flawlessly. All plain vanilla HTML get rendered before the JSF component tree. You need to wrap all plain vanilla in <f:verbatim> tags so that they get included in the JSF component tree. Although this was as per the specification, this has received a lot of criticism. See also a.o. JSF/Facelets: why is it not a good idea to mix JSF/Facelets with HTML tags?
JSF 1.2 (May 2006)
This was the first release of the new JSF development team lead by Ryan Lubke. The new team did a lot of great work. There were also changes in the spec. The major change was the improvement of the view handling. This not only fully detached JSF from JSP, so one could use a different view technology than JSP, but it also allowed developers to inline plain vanilla HTML in the JSF page without hassling with <f:verbatim> tags. Another major focus of the new team was improving the performance. During the lifetime of the Sun JSF Reference Implementation 1.2 (which was codenamed Mojarra since build 1.2_08, around 2008), practically every build got shipped with (major) performance improvements next to the usual (minor) bugfixes.
The only serious disadvantage of JSF 1.x (including 1.2) is the lack of a scope in between the request and session scope, the so-called conversation scope. This forced developers to hassle with hidden input elements, unnecessary DB queries and/or abusing the session scope whenever one want to retain the initial model data in the subsequent request in order to successfully process validations, conversions, model changes and action invocations in the more complex webapplications. The pain could be softened by adopting a 3rd party library which retains the necessary data in the subsequent request like MyFaces Tomahawk <t:saveState> component, JBoss Seam conversation scope and MyFaces Orchestra conversation framework.
Another disadvantage for HTML/CSS purists is that JSF uses the colon : as ID separator character to ensure uniqueness of the HTML element id in the generated HTML output, especially when a component is reused more than once in the view (templating, iterating components, etc). Because this is an illegal character in CSS identifiers, you would need to use the \ to escape the colon in CSS selectors, resulting in ugly and odd-looking selectors like #formId\:fieldId {} or even #formId\3A fieldId {}. See also How to use JSF generated HTML element ID with colon ":" in CSS selectors? However, if you're not a purist, read also By default, JSF generates unusable ids, which are incompatible with css part of web standards.
Also, JSF 1.x didn't ship with Ajax facilities out of the box. Not really a technical disadvantage, but due to the Web 2.0 hype during that period, it became a functional disadvantage. Exadel was early to introduce Ajax4jsf, which was thoroughly developed during the years and became the core part of JBoss RichFaces component library. Another component libraries were shipped with builtin Ajax powers as well, the well known one being ICEfaces.
About halfway the JSF 1.2 lifetime, a new XML based view technology was introduced: Facelets. This offered enormous advantages above JSP, especially in the area of templating.
JSF 2.0 (June 2009)
This was the second major release, with Ajax as buzzword. There were a lot of technical and functional changes. JSP is replaced by Facelets as the default view technology and Facelets was expanded with capabilities to create custom components using pure XML (the so-called composite components). See also Why Facelets is preferred over JSP as the view definition language from JSF2.0 onwards?
Ajax powers were introduced in flavor of the <f:ajax> component which has much similarities with Ajax4jsf. Annotations and convention-over-configuration enhancements were introduced to kill the verbose faces-config.xml file as much as possible. Also, the default naming container ID separator character : became configurable, so HTML/CSS purists could breathe relieved. All you need to do is to define it as init-param in web.xml with the name javax.faces.SEPARATOR_CHAR and ensuring that you aren't using the character yourself anywhere in client ID's, such as -.
Last but not least, a new scope was introduced, the view scope. It eliminated another major JSF 1.x disadvantage as described before. You just declare the bean #ViewScoped to enable the conversation scope without hassling all ways to retain the data in subsequent (conversational) requests. A #ViewScoped bean will live as long as you're subsequently submitting and navigating to the same view (independently of the opened browser tab/window!), either synchronously or asynchronously (Ajax). See also Difference between View and Request scope in managed beans and How to choose the right bean scope?
Although practically all disadvantages of JSF 1.x were eliminated, there are JSF 2.0 specific bugs which might become a showstopper. The #ViewScoped fails in tag handlers due to a chicken-egg issue in partial state saving. This is fixed in JSF 2.2 and backported in Mojarra 2.1.18. Also passing custom attributes like the HTML5 data-xxx is not supported. This is fixed in JSF 2.2 by new passthrough elements/attributes feature. Further the JSF implementation Mojarra has its own set of issues. Relatively a lot of them are related to the sometimes unintuitive behaviour of <ui:repeat>, the new partial state saving implementation and the poorly implemented flash scope. Most of them are fixed in a Mojarra 2.2.x version.
Around the JSF 2.0 time, PrimeFaces was introduced, based on jQuery and jQuery UI. It became the most popular JSF component library.
JSF 2.2 (May 2013)
With the introduction of JSF 2.2, HTML5 was used as buzzword even though this was technically just supported in all older JSF versions. See also JavaServer Faces 2.2 and HTML5 support, why is XHTML still being used. Most important new JSF 2.2 feature is the support for custom component attributes, hereby opening a world of possibilities, such as custom tableless radio button groups.
Apart from implementation specific bugs and some "annoying little things" such as inability to inject an EJB in a validator/converter (already fixed in JSF 2.3), there are not really major disadvantages in the JSF 2.2 specification.
Component based MVC vs Request based MVC
Some may opt that the major disadvantage of JSF is that it allows very little fine-grained control over the generated HTML/CSS/JS. That's not JSF's own, that's just because it's a component based MVC framework, not a request (action) based MVC framework. If a high degree of controlling the HTML/CSS/JS is your major requirement when considering a MVC framework, then you should already not be looking at a component based MVC framework, but at a request based MVC framework like Spring MVC. You only need to take into account that you'll have to write all that HTML/CSS/JS boilerplate yourself. See also Difference between Request MVC and Component MVC.
See also:
What is the difference between JSF, Servlet and JSP? (just to understand the basics)
Using JSF to develop tableless CSS layouts (another myth about JSF)
JSF vs plain HTML/CSS/JS/jQuery (when JSF is the wrong choice)
Design patterns in web applications (illustrates the ideology behind MVC)
After 5 years of working with JSF, I think that I can add my 2 cents.
Two major JSF drawbacks:
Big learning curve. JSF is complex, that's just true.
Its component nature. Component-based framework tries to hide the true nature of the Web, which comes with a huge amount of complications and disasters (like not supporting GET in JSF within almost 5 years).
IMHO hiding HTTP Request/Response from the developer is an enormous mistake. From my experience, every component-based framework adds abstraction to the Web development, and that abstraction results in unnecessary overhead and higher complexity.
And minor drawbacks that come to my mind:
By default ID of the object is composed of its parents' ids, for example form1:button1.
No easy way to comment-out incorrect page's fragment. Tag <ui:remove> needs syntactically correct content which is parsed anyway.
Low quality 3rd party components which e.g. don't check isRendered() inside processXxx() method before continuing.
Incorporating LESS & Sencha is hard.
Doesn't play well with REST.
Not so easy for UX designers, because ready-to-use components have their own CSS styles, that need to be overwritten.
Don't get me wrong. As a component framework JSF in version 2 is really good, but it's still component-based, and always will be...
Please take a look at the low popularity of Tapestry, Wicket and low enthusiasm of experienced JSF developers (what is even more meaningful).
And for contrast, take a look at the success of Rails, Grails, Django, Play! Framework - they all are action-based and don't try to hide from the programmer true request/response and stateless nature of the web.
For me it's major JSF disadvantage. IMHO JSF can suits some type of applications (intranet, forms-intensive), but for real-life web application it's not a good way to go.
Hope it helps somebody with his/her choices that regards to front-end.
A few drawbacks that pop to mind:
JSF is a component-based framework.
This has inherent restrictions that
have to do with obeying the
component-model.
AFAIK JSF supports only POST, so if you want a GET somewhere you have
to do a plain servlet/JSP.
Most components try to provide abstractions over domains like
relational databases and front-end
JavaScript, and many time these
abstractions are "leaky" and very hard to debug.
These abstractions might be a good starting point for a junior developer or someone not comfortable with a particular domain (e.g. front-end JavaScript), but are very hard to optimise for performance, since there are several layers involved, and most people that use them have little understanding of what is going on under the hood.
The templating mechanisms that are usually used with JSF have nothing to do with how web desigers work. The WYSIWYG editors for JSF are primitive and in any case, your designer will give you HTML/CSS that you'll have to spend ages converting.
Things like EL expressions are not statically checked and both the compiler and IDEs are not doing a good job at finding errors, so you'll end up with errors that you'll have to catch at run-time. This might be fine for dynamically typed language like Ruby or PHP, but if I have to withstand the sheer bloat of the Java ecosystem, I demand typing for my templates.
To sum up: The time you will save with JSF, from avoiding to write the JSP/servlet/bean boilerplate code, you'll spent it x10 to make it scale and do exactly what you want it to do.
To me the biggest disadvantage of JSF 2.0 is the learning curve not only of JSF, but the component libraries that you have to use in order to get it to do useful work. Consider the staggering number of specifications and standards you have deal with to really be proficient:
HTML in the various incarnations. Don't pretend you don't need to know it.
HTTP -- when you can't figure out what is going on you have to open Firebug and see. For that you need to know this.
CSS -- Like it or not. It isn't so bad really and there are some nice tools out there at least.
XML -- JSF will probably the first place you use namespaces to this degree.
Servlet Specification. Sooner or later you will get into calling methods in this package. Aside from that you have to know how your Facelets gets turned into XHTML or whatever.
JSP (mostly so you know why you don't need it in JSF)
JSTL (again, mostly to cope with legacy framework)
Expression Language (EL) in its various forms.
ECMAScript, JavaScript, or whatever else you want to call it.
JSON -- you should know this even if you don't use it.
AJAX. I would say JSF 2.0 does a decent job of hiding this from you but you still need to know what is going on.
The DOM. And how a browser uses it. See ECMAScript.
DOM Events -- a topic all by itself.
Java Persistence Architecture (JPA) that is if you want your app to have any back end data base.
Java itself.
JSEE while you are at it.
The Context Dependency Injection specification (CDI) and how it clashes with and is used with JSF 2.0
JQuery -- I would like to see you get along without it.
Now, once you are done with that you can get on with the proprietary specifications, namely the component libraries and provider libraries you will pick up along the way:
PrimeFaces (my component library of choice)
RichFaces
MyFaces
ICEFaces
EclipseLink (my JPA Provider)
Hibernate
Weld
And don't forget the container! And all those configuration files:
GlassFish (2, 3, etc)
JBoss
Tomcat
So -- THIS IS MAKING IT EASY? Sure, JSF 2.0 is "easy" as long as all you want to do is the most basic web pages with the simplest interactions.
Simply put, JSF 2.0 is the most complicated and cumbersome mishmash of glued together technologies as exists in the software universe today. And I can't think of anything I would rather use.
Inexperienced developers usually will create applications that are painfully slow and code will be really ugly and hard to maintain. Its deceptively simple to start, but actually requires some investment in learning if you want to write good programs.
At least at the start you will often "stuck" on some problem and will spend more time reading balusc posts on internet than actually working :) After a while it will be less and less of that, but it still can be annoying.
Even more annoying when you find out that the problem is not due to you lack of knowledge/mistake but actually a bug. Mojarra was(is?) quite buggy, and another layer of components adds even more problems. Richfaces was biggest piece of crap software ever written :) Don't know how it is now on version 4. We have Primefaces which is better, but still you will run into bugs or lack of features especially with more exotic components. And now you will need to pay for Primefaces updates. So I would say its buggy but its getting better especially after 2.2 version fixed some problems with spec. Framework getting more mature but still far from perfect (maybe myfaces better?).
I don't find it especially flexible. Often if you need something very very customized and there are no components that does that - it will be a bit painful. Again I'm talking from average developer perspective - the one with deadlines, quick reading tutorials, and searching stackoverflow when getting stuck because no time to learn how it really works :) Often some components seems to have "almost" what you need, but not exactly and sometimes you might spend too much time to make it do something you want :) Need to be careful in evaluating if its better to create your own or torture existing component. Actually if you are creating something really unique I would not recommend JSF.
So in short my drawbacks would be: Complexity, Not very smooth development progress, buggy, inflexible.
Of course there are advantages too, but that's not what you asked. Anyway that's my experience with framework others might have different opinions, so best way is to just try it for a while to see if its for you (just something more complex - not naive examples - JSF really shines there:) IMHO best use case for JSF is business applications, like CRMs etc...
"JSF will output View-layer HTML and JavaScript that you cannot control or change without going into Controller code."
Actually JSF gives you the flexibility, you can either use standard/third-party components or create your own which you have full control over what is rendered. It is just one xhtml you need to create your custom components with JSF 2.0.
We developed a sample project with JSF (It was a three week research so we may have lose some things!)
We try to use core jsf, if a component is needed we used PrimeFaces.
The project was a web site with navigation. Each page should be loaded via ajax when the menu is clicked.
The site has two usecases:
A page with a grid. The grid is loaded via ajax and should support sort and paging
A three step wizard page. Each page has client side validation (for simple validations) and server side ajax base validation (for complex validations). Any server exception ( from service layer) should be displayed on the same page of wizard without navigating to next page.
We found that:
You need to use some hacks from omniFaces to make the JSF view state fixed. The JSF state will be corrupted when you include pages via ajax in each other. This seems a bug in JSF and may be fixed on next releases (not in 2.3).
The JSF Flow is not working correctly with ajax (or we could not make it work!) We try to use primeface wizard component instead but the client validation seems not supported and mean while it was not standard JSF flow standard.
When using some jQuery components like jqGird, and you need to load JSON results, then you are advised to use pure servlet, The JSF will do nothing for you. So if you use these kind of components, your design will not fit in JSF.
We try to do some client scripts when ajax complete by ajaxComplete and we found that the PF 4 has implemented its own ajax events. We had some jQuery components and we need to change their code.
If you change the above sample to a non Ajax project ( or at least less ajax project) you will not face lots of above issues.
We summarize our research as:
JSF is not working well in an fully ajax base website.
Of course we find lots of nice features in JSF which may be very helpful in some projects, so consider your project needs.
Please refer to JSF technical documents to review JSF advantages, and in my opinion the biggest advantage of JSF, is the COMPLETE AND HUGE support from #BalusC ;-)
I'm not a Java Server Faces expert at all. But IMHO the main disadvantage is that it's server side. I'm tired of learning and using server side web presentation layer frameworks like ASP.NET Web Forms, ASP.NET MVC, Java Server Faces, Struts, php frameworks and ruby on rails frameworks. I said goodbye to all of them, and I said hello to Angularjs and TypeScript. My presentation layer runs on the browser. I doesn't matter if it is served by Windows IIS running php or ASP.NET, or if it is served by an Apache web server running on Linux. I just need to learn just one framework that works everywhere.
Just my two cents.
For me the biggest shortcoming of JSF is poor support for programmatically (dynamically) generated pages.
If you want to construct your page (create page component model) dynamically from java code. For example if you are working on WYSIWYG web page constructor. Adequate documentation of this use case in not generally available. There are many points where you have to experiment and development is quiet slow. Many things just don't work how you would expect. But generally its possible hack it somehow.
Good thing is that it's not problem in philosophy or architecture of JSF. It's simply not elaborated enough (as far as I know).
JSF 2 brought Composite Components which should make component development easy, but their support for dynamic (programmatic) construction is very poor. If you overcome quiet complicated and almost undocumented process of dynamic Composite Component construction, you will find out that If you nest few Composite components little deeper, they stop working, throwing some exceptions.
But It seems that JSF community is aware of this shortcomings. They are working on this as you can see from these two bugs
http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES-1309
http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-599
Situation should be better with JSF 2.2 at least if we are talking about specification.
Commenting on my last few months of Primefaces/JSF experience:
If you can use components "off the shelf", I guess it's not terrible.
However, it doesn't play well as soon as you step outside and need custom UIs. - For example, we needed to use Twitter's bootstrap for our project. (Not primefaces bootstrap).
Now our pages work as follows:
Page loads.
User interacts with a Primefaces that has ajax functionality
Bootstrap's javascript bindings break
We run extra javascript to rebind everything
The promise of JSF to avoid writing javascript turned into writing more javascript than we would have if not using Primefaces--and that javascript to is fix what Primefaces breaks.
It's a time sink--unless you again use "off the shelf" stuff. Also really ugly (Primefaces) when having to work with Selenium. It can all be done--but again--there's only so much time.
Definitely avoid this if you're working with a UX/design team and need to rapidly iterate on the UI--you can save time by learning jquery/writing straight HTML--or looking at react/angular.
JSF has many advantages, question being on disadvantage let me add couple of points on it.
On a practical scenario of implementing a web project with in a time frame you need to keep an eye on the following factors.
Do you have enough senior members in your team who can suggest best
controls suitable for each scenario?
Do you have the bandwidth to accommodate the initial learning curve?
Do you have enough expertise in your team who can review the JSF
stuff produces by the developers?
If your answer is 'No' for the questions, you may end up in a non-maintainable codebase.
JSF has only one disadvantage: before starting "JSF" development you should clearly understand web development, core java and front-end architecture.
Nowadays "new" JavaScript frameworks just try to copy/paste "JSF" component-based model.
Among all the "mainstream" frameworks such as Spring MVC, Wicket, Tapestry, etc., the JSF of Java EE with its composite components is the most elaborated presentation-layer and component-oriented technology provided. It is a bit cumbersome and incomplete compared to solutions provided by HybridJava.
Most web frameworks are still using the traditional action based MVC model. A controller recieves the request, calls the model and delegates rendering to a template. That is what Rails, Grails, Struts, Spring MVC ... are doing.
The other category, the component based frameworks like Wicket, Tapestry, JSF, or ASP.Net Web Forms have become more popular over the last years, but my perception is that the traditional action based approach is far more popular. And even ASP .Net Web Forms has become a sibling name ASP .Net Web MVC. Edit: Maybe my perception was wrong because of the impression of increasing interest in Wicket. If I ask Google Trends, there is much more growth in the tradional MVC frameworks.
I think the kind of applications built with both types of frameworks is overlapping very much, so the question is: Why are action based frameworks so predominant?
the component based frameworks like
Wicket, Tapestry, JSF, or ASP.Net Web
Forms have become more popular over
the last years
[Citation Needed]?
I seriously doubt this claim. MVC has taken over the .Net blog/twitter sphere. Its really hard to find somebody saying "we'll use webforms for our next project".
MVC fits the stateless nature of the web better. Component frameworks are an abstraction web developers didn't want.
Why are things more popular? They are several reasons: because of a good user experience, fast development cycle, cheapest things, etc
But sometimes
the loudest
or most hyped (rails, although it is great ;-))
or most arrogant (apple)
or the things with the most aggressive marketing (microsoft)
will win.
That is called evolution.
BTW: I am with Thevs. The component based frameworks will be the final winners (like GWT/Vaadin or wicket).
Inertia. Once you've invested a lot in one technology, it becomes progressively more difficult to change to something better. And it is not 10 times better, because then everyone (even the CEO) would have seen the change is needed.
I believe it's because action-based frameworks give developers (and designers) more control over the appearance of the page. Component-based frameworks try (unsuccessfully, IMHO) to hide the fact that the web is the web. They try to make web programming something like programming a native desktop widget toolkit like WinForms or Cocoa.
But the web is very, very different from that. I think action-based frameworks are popular because they recognize this.
EDIT
Apparently some people have misunderstood what I mean by this, so let me be clear. I'm NOT criticizing web application that appears to users to function like a desktop application. I have absolutely no problem with that.
What I'm talking about is the underlying coding methodology and philosophy. Each tag in a tag library system renders HTML in a certain way, analogous to a widget in a desktop programming library like Cocoa or WinForms. Some systems allow you to customize the rendered HTML, but this can sometimes be non-trivial to accomplish. It will render CSS classes and so on over which you either have little control or have to make a special effort to control. It pretends to be a black-box solution, but it cannot possibly be, because if you want to style the rendered HTML or target it with JavaScript, you have to understand its structure and so on.
I suspect that developers are using MVC frameworks as a simple way of exposing services, not as action-based web app frameworks (this is pure speculation on my part). i.e. they are using them for AJAX requests. I would predict that the concept of action-based frameworks quietly goes away over the next couple of years, along with (to some extent) the concept of MVC in this context.
I think you only see these frameworks showing all around. But most programmers use in-house (custom) or much more simple framework models (like ExtJS or JQuery) and silently do their job.
EDIT: By the way, I think MVC model is trying to mimc the old and probably obsolete business/presentation separation model which was proposed for legacy applications some time ago.
I see no future for this model (2-3 years from now). AJAX is already changing all the way you're working with backend.