WE NEED JSF SUPPORT TO BE ABLE TO STAY WITH INTELLIJ
Visiting JavaOne, one things becomes very clear: JSF is happening and will become the predominant web-technology for some years to come.
IntelliJ has for some years now been setting the standard for Java IDE's. Arguably IntelliJ is THE best Java IDE around and has always been the most innovative in its class in many, many very subtle ways that most people simply just overlook.
However, I think a lot of developers are going to consider other IDE's simply for their JSF support. I played around with some of the other IDE's and although none of them is anywhere near as good as IntelliJ, the JSF showcases are very compelling.
Forget Visual Fabriek (!!!), developers and companies want standards based solutions and not some proprietary framework. Without innovative JSF support like WYSIWYG drag'n drop, IntelliJ will very soon and very quickly lose marketshare to other IDE's.
Now GO get me some JSF support with the same innovative features that you guys are good at!!
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Goodbye. Can I have your stuff?
This is about the only thing you said that made any sense and it's not
even based on facts. Last I checked Spring and Struts were both
proprietary frameworks based on standards... does that count or are they
too going bye bye because of JSF?
Marcus, can you share his stuff with me?
R
Well, the message at JavaOne seems to be quite JSF this JSF that. I attend a session today on how Spring and JSF can compliment each other. Then there is Shale.
http://today.java.net/pub/n/Shale
The tribes are in full force this year but is it ever different? I wonder if a session on how to not use frameworks and the like would be accepted next year.
--
Matthew
Even though Spring and Struts aren't really standards based, the're at least not proprietary which, if used with care, allows you to prevent "vendor" lock-in.
Could you please define, what do you mean with "standard" and "proprietary".
IIRC, there is no framework under the ISO standard.
Tom
Tt would be interesting to get a viewpoint from JetBrains people regarding JSF - regardless of personal preferences in this area. When Spring, Shale, Beehive and other frameworks starts supporting JSF, it will get momentum and be impossible to ignore.
Personally I haven't looked at the Visual Fabrique stuff, but if I were to take an architectual decision on Web framework, I would probably go for a standard (like JSF) or an open source solution - not a proprietary framework.
I think BEA have understood this by open sourcing the RAD aspect of BEA Workshop framework as Beehive AND offering support for Spring. I don't like Workshop at all, but I see that the controls mechanism in Beehive is a powerful way of accessing J2EE resources - and it's also very IDE friendly (one way of accessing all J2EE resources).
Before the question shows up again :)
My short - not so well thought out - definitions
standard: Java/JSR based specification or by other standardization organizations (OASIS, W3C etc)
Proprietary Framework: Framework source code owned by a company and not available for modification.
Oh, then I guess Fabrique would not match in any of your groups.
Tom
Could you elaborate a little bit why.....
-
Trond
Fabrique platform (framework) will be open source (Apache License), while
Visual Fabrique (IDE) will be indeed commercial.
-
Maxim Shafirov
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
>> Oh, then I guess Fabrique would not match in any of your groups.
>>
Surely you can just program JSF using IDEA already? Afterall, JSF is java and jsp pages, no? IDEA doesn't do HTML page layout either, there's always going to be a lot more of that than JSF so why aren't you screaming at the top of your lungs for HTML design support too? How about database design? Just stfu. Just because a bunch of very loud people scream about how JSF is going to be the number one and this and that, I actually doubt that all "framework users" combined are still a lot fewer than the pure servlet+jsp solutions out HERE in the real world. Each company has their own little helper framework to deal with servlets and let me tell you: IDEA does a bloody excellent job at that!
Jeez, man, take a chill pill.
Out here in the Real World I use frameworks every day, and have in every job I've had in the last, oh, 2 years. I would think twice about accepting any job with only proprietary frameworks. I'm going to start a new job in the Real World in a couple of months, they use JSF for all their new projects, so I'd really like some support too. I'm not going to go saying anything daft like JSF "will become the predominant web-technology for some years to come" or that I want WYSIWYG web stuff, but some support is reasonable to expect - a lot of people are going to use JSF soon.
In article <16427593.1120128068343.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net>,
Colin Fleming <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote:
then in your case enjoy jsf in idea today!
So far all those who screamed we want jsf, haven't even said WHAT in
idea doesn't support working with JSF.
Be specific, don't throw theories, and don't run down saying wo is me I
can't work with JSF unless there is wysiwyg drag and drop... we saw how
much people bitched about that one for the form designer, and we see how
much use it gets.
I maintain, idea is not a tool for web designers and it should not be
moved forward as such. It's for true developers who understand wth
they're doing, and just want something to help them do their job better
and faster. So if you need wysiwyg to do your job, go use studio
creator and see if you can deal with that any better, otherwise be a
developer and get down to the code nice and dirty where they use all
those pretty characters printed on the keyboard to write html and jsp.
R
Hi!
I would like to see a minimum jsf support for:
*) Indention ins jsp file (see my previous post "jsp/jsf indention")
*) code insight in jsp/jsf for managed-beans in jsf tags - sort of
#{bean.property....}
*) to know which bean are "managed" collect all faces-config.xml as
configured in web.xml '<param-name>javax.faces.CONFIG_FILES</param-name>'
I am not sure if any visual design tool is of any help. But maybe I am
just one of the "old grown" developers.
---
Mario
Hi,
IDEA 5 has some knowledge on JSF HTML tlds (as well as Struts, etc) We
welcome your feedback.
Colin Fleming wrote:
>>Just stfu.
--
Best regards,
Maxim Mossienko
IntelliJ Labs / JetBrains Inc.
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
Why does IDEA insist on formatting JSP/JSF pages as HTML, even after explicitly setting JSP formatting style in the Global Code Style?
I couldn't agree more with these suggestions. The first two are especially frustrating, since it's a level of support you've come to expect from IDEA with Java source files.
-Stephen
I would seriously disagree. JSF was all the talk last year. Then
people started using it and felt the pain of an incomplete
implementation. We tried and found that it was a lot of hype, but not
ready for prime time. We stayed with Struts and have not regretted one
second of it. Maybe JSF 1.1/JSP 2.1 will rectify the problems.
However, if JetBrains does provide support, then it should include
drag-n-drop. If it doesn't provide drag-n-drop, then it is not RAD and
then there is no compelling reason to use JSF over Struts tags.
While we are on it, writing your own renderers is lots of fun (and cool)
if the original code was written with that flexibility in mind. If it
wasn't, then it is a complete pain in the arse.
Dylan van Iersel wrote:
>Visiting JavaOne, one things becomes very clear: JSF is happening and will become the predominant web-technology for some years to come.
>
>IntelliJ has for some years now been setting the standard for Java IDE's. Arguably IntelliJ is THE best Java IDE around and has always been the most innovative in its class in many, many very subtle ways that most people simply just overlook.
>
>However, I think a lot of developers are going to consider other IDE's simply for their JSF support. I played around with some of the other IDE's and although none of them is anywhere near as good as IntelliJ, the JSF showcases are very compelling.
>
>Forget Visual Fabriek (!!!), developers and companies want standards based solutions and not some proprietary framework. Without innovative JSF support like WYSIWYG drag'n drop, IntelliJ will very soon and very quickly lose marketshare to other IDE's.
>
>Now GO get me some JSF support with the same innovative features that you guys are good at!!
>
Developing JSF applications in IDEA today is not "Developing with Pleasure"
Beyond the fatal errors IDEA reports every time I open a JSF/JSP file, and the occasional crash where IDEA just quits, IDEA doesn't understand how JSF pages link to backing beans, or the navigation flow.
See Mario's post below for excellent ideas regarding rudimentary, non-WYSIWYG JSF support that IDEA could use today.
Agreed, but since JSF + CSS is about page layout, not having WYSIWYG support is a detriment.
(Ignoring the silly "pushing characters is always better than visual manipulation" assumption) -- if IDEA implements a WYSIWYG JSF editor that helps UI developers do their job better and faster, isn't that just as valid?
-Stephen
But.. what frameworks are you all using that AREN'T proprietary? They're all proprietary for gods sake (with a few exceptions). Just because an open source firm created/wrote a framework does not make it any less proprietary than what I wrote today ontop of "servlets".
The problem with some of you is that you pick a framework that you like (probably for good reasons and all that), then you start kicking and screaming because all other god damn tools don't Support(tm) them. I don't know what Real World(tm) you all live in, but I program java IDEA provides ALL the tool support I need with regards to any code I need to write. But then again, I stay clear of JSFusion, Craps and the shiteworks out there that don't work well without ample tools.
In article <19155724.1120146245530.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net>,
Stephen Scaringi <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote:
Ok and again this EAP, and keep filing the bugs because this is not a
finished product. Until it gets out there as a final product and throws
exceptions, then you can really bitch about it. Until then we all pluck
away and file bug reports. If you don't file bug reports, then in the
end you get what you get.
It is??? How so? Is it very hard to make a change and hit the browser
window which you'd have to do anyway since most of the editors out there
never render the page exactly like your browser would in the first place.
perhaps, it depends on how may people they think would buy IDEA just
because it has a visual editor. I bet having a Java UI editor didn't
increase the sales of IDEs for IDEA by any amount which was worth the
cost of development. If it had, and this is just a guess, they would
have concentrated a lot more efforts on driving that end of it.
R
In article <1697119.1120146355822.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net>,
Patrik Andersson <pandersson@gmail.com> wrote:
Exactly my point. You can't switch from one framework to another
without some serious pain, no matter how talented you are in the realm
of OO.
Second when companies talk proprietary they talk about using something
like ColdFusion or Tango (heh I date myself), v/s using Java which is
much more accessible to people.
Bingo. IDEA does NOTHING to prevent you from working with your favorite
framework, unless your framework is retarded enough to require an IDE
with specific functionality.
R
But only if you first reported them.
Tom
This is because the IDEA GUI builder wasn't good from the begining IMHO.
In order to "Develop with Pleasure" the IDEA GUI Builder should be like
JFormDesigner IMHO.
Ahmed.
My point is that they should have never gone down that road unless they
were gonna kick ass at it. It's not bad, but it's not great, and it's
not good enough for me to consider using in my project because of added
lib dependencies. I see the same thing happening with JSF, spend too
much on GUI building, people don't like how the code is produced, so
they end up editing it manually and the GUI builder goes by the way side
and time is wasted.
R
>they should have never gone down that road unless they
>were gonna kick ass at it. It's not bad, but it's not great, and it's
>not good enough for me to consider using in my project because of added
>lib dependencies.
>
It's good enough for IDEA's and plugins developers. I'm not sure they -
JB - had higher hopes than just to satisfy those people.
Alain
JSF is a nice thing. It still lacks some serious implementations that go beyond the ri, but I like the concept and idea behind it.
But - saying that - why do you need any other support beyond what IDEA already has? You can edit your JSPs and insert all those JSF tags into them. you can also easily edit your faces-config and backing beans without any problems and IDEA's nice XML and Java editors. Well, JSF-EL support would be a nice gimmick, but I hope you don't really want IDEA to become another VB clone such as Sun Java Studio Creator.
IDEA is an IDE for people to love to work on their code directly without any masquerades. It's pure to the job that has to be done. Don't change it.
BTW: And don't shout. It won't give your opinion any higher rating.
Absolutely, and the bug reports are filed. The real point is that IDEA doesn't help with JSF specific stuff.
Per browser, per platform, sigh. But I didn't only mean WSYIWYG in terms of HTML layout, but also page navigation, and page association to backing beans, and page data binding to backing bean properties, and backing bean properties binding to regular-old-beans, etc. There are a lot of possibilities for visual composition. All of this info could be gleaned from the existing Java, JSF/JSP, XML source files.
Agreed. I would just like non-WSYIWYG JSF support at this point. If JB thinks it's worth the effort for a JSF WSYIWYG editor, then it really needs to be much better than the Java UI editor.
-Stephen
Actually, I'm not using JSF in my current day job (which I didn't make very clear), but I will in my next one. I'm not a JSF expert at the moment, so I don't really know what sort of support I would want. I'm not into WYSIWYG for web stuff, so I wouldn't be after that.
Right, my post was more spurred by the allegation that "not many people use frameworks in the Real World", wherever that is, which is clearly ridiculous. I also couldn't resist a slight sarcastic dig at that bit, I should feel bad about it but I don't really ;)
No argument there, except for the distinction between web developers and "true" developers. And like it or not, a huge amount of Java work at the moment is web based, and IntelliJ will lose custom if they don't support those technologies.
Right, but I will almost never take a job based on a proprietary framework (i.e. a framework written and used by one company) because I can switch between projects, jobs, companies, and countries as long as the projects are based on things that I know, like Spring, Hibernate, etc. I don't know how you define "proprietary", but right now I define it as "useless when I change jobs" :)
Right, solid XML support and a better documented plugin interface would be fine here. XML is getting there quickly.
Stephen Scaringi wrote:
I for one actuallyed liked the GUI editor. Sure, its not 100% perfect,
its nothing like anyone else is doing, its trying for new things and has
alot of potential - its just a shame it didn't get any attention during
this EAP :(
Anyway, regarding WSYWYG JSF support, I don't know JBuilder is doing
now, but mid last year they had a new release with big displays of
fappery over their JSF support, and when I watched a screencast of it,
sure it was drag and drop, but you edited JSP and when you draged
components in, it entered the template JSP/tags code.
It certainly wasn't paint-by-gui design. So if there was, I don't know
if it just wasn't shown in that screencast...
Anyway, so you're all threatening to leave IDEA if you don't get JSF
support? Why don't you go sit in the corner with the AOP quitters, file
your JIRA requests, and plot out just what you WANT for JSF support
within IDEA.