Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Java-EE: Cleaner and simpler alternatives to JSF [closed]

Tags:

We are starting to develop a web application using Java EE 6.

We got surprised with the complexity of the JSF's generated HTML. I mean even a simple link has some javascript handling code. and this is, in my opinion, a usability problem because browser's gestures (as "ctrl+click" over a link) simply doesn't work. Also, I'm suspecting this could get worse when we need to maintain that code or tweak the UI design with javascript frameworks like jQuery. it reassembles me: Webforms vs ASP.Net MVC. complexity against simplicity.

Anyway this is my first time with JSF. so I really would like to read your experiences with it.

Do you know a simpler rendering engine for Java EE?

How has your development experience with JSF been?

Have you developed a web app using JSF and lots of jQuery/Dojo/Script.aculo.us?

like image 279
SDReyes Avatar asked Jun 10 '11 13:06

SDReyes


People also ask

Is JSF still being used?

We're Saying “Goodbye” to JSF and Hello to Web UI. As the title of this post implies, we're sunsetting our use of JSF for building Web UIs. The aging content management back-office tool has been deprecated in our recently-released LTS 2019.

What is JSF alternative?

AngularJS, Spring MVC, Spring, Vaadin, and HTML5 are the most popular alternatives and competitors to JSF.

Is JSF part of Java EE?

Jakarta Server Faces (JSF; formerly JavaServer Faces) is a Java specification for building component-based user interfaces for web applications and was formalized as a standard through the Java Community Process being part of the Java Platform, Enterprise Edition.

Why is JSF not popular?

Getting a clean layout is one of the biggest problems with JSF. JSF abstracts many of the things that are natural for a front end developer. Things like javascript and HTML manipulation and async calls. This abstraction is great until somethings not working properly and you have to figure out why it isn't.


2 Answers

It is hard to define what "simple" means when you ask about a "simpler rendering engine". JSF is a very unique animal and I am afraid there isn't anything simpler that is also similar in the Java world.

My experience with JSF has been EXTREMELY positive, and this is coming from someone with years of experience developing under ASP.NET. The learning curve is still steep, and I can't imagine complex enterprise systems being possible without some form of custom Javascript and possibly even custom components, however in my opinion it is simpler than ASP.NET and much less heavy as well. They addressed a lot of the issues that made ASP.NET so difficult to work with, (Eg. simple client ids for the DOM, XHTML compliance).

I recently developed an application that will be going to production shortly using only Primefaces components, standard Mojarra facelets, one custom component, and a handful of Javascript/hidden input field workarounds for component framework bugs. It was stunningly easy aside from the few workarounds I needed to implement. I am extremely happy with the results, the stakeholders LOVE IT and I will absolutely use it again in my next project.

In formulating a team my real world experiences with it tell me that it is best to put a highly experienced web application developer as a lead on the project, someone with superb experience in Javascript, CSS and Java web technologies. The rest of team could be entry level developers with a modicum of guidance.

like image 136
maple_shaft Avatar answered Sep 27 '22 23:09

maple_shaft


I've been working with JSF on a large project. I have experience of working with JQuery, normal HTML/css/javascript, GWT and Gxt. And I can tell you that JSF is the worst of the bunch. If you like your back-end code to be separate and independent of your front-end code then JSP is not the way to go. It littery ties your front-end to your back-end with no clear separation of concerns. The other problem with JSF is that it is very hard to get your head around. Creating great AJAX pages in using frontend technology (e.g. javascript, html and css) is very easy. My 14 year of son gets taught how to do it at school. Getting the same effect using JSF is incredibly complicated. Take a look at how to define as link: <h:commandLink value="New" immediate="true" action="#{projectUiService.showProjectCreate}" />. And there is no way to specify a form action url. You have to use the JSF managed beans and navigation semantics. It's a completely new front-end language. So even if you want to style up the front-end or add JQuery in you'll be stuffed.

Configuring your build and runtime environment is also a pain. There are so many inter-dependencies among jar files that if you don't have the right combination of JSF, Richfaces, and Spring Jars, then you have no hope of getting your application even out of the build build environment. If you want to get a hint at this then go to the maven search site and look for the class javax.faces.component.UIViewRoot. Everyone and their dog has it. Also take note at the javax.faces and com.sun.faces - what's the difference? Who knows, but they don't work together. And some version only work with specific version of RichFaces.

My advice - stay well clear. Give your app a spring back-end and a normal HTML front-end. There is no way you can write a decent large enterprise scale application in JSF. It would be just too complicated. You'll end up with a huge monolithic code base that would be almost impossible to maintain.

like image 28
Adam Davies Avatar answered Sep 28 '22 01:09

Adam Davies