|
View:
New views
4 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
|
|
Question about Facelets devHi,
Just curious, what is the status of the Facelets dev work that is happening for MyFaces? Just wondering if there is any help needed and/or what the ETA is. Also, is that anticipated to include all of the taglib as well? Thanks, Curtiss Howard |
|
|
Re: Question about Facelets devHi,
I'm working on it. Hopefully it'll be done by next Sunday. So far I think I should be able to handle it on my own. If not ready by Sunday, then I guess some help would be needed. As for the taglib, we keep the tags defined by the spec. Regards, ~ Simon On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Curtiss Howard <curtiss.howard@...> wrote: Hi, |
|
|
Re: Question about Facelets devOn Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Simon
Lessard<simon.lessard.3@...> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on it. Hopefully it'll be done by next Sunday. So far I think I > should be able to handle it on my own. If not ready by Sunday, then I guess > some help would be needed. As for the taglib, we keep the tags defined by > the spec. > > > Regards, > > ~ Simon > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Curtiss Howard <curtiss.howard@...> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Just curious, what is the status of the Facelets dev work that is >> happening for MyFaces? Just wondering if there is any help needed >> and/or what the ETA is. Also, is that anticipated to include all of >> the taglib as well? >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Curtiss Howard > > Simon, Thanks for the update. WRT the taglib, what I meant was, does your work include implementing the tags as well? Thanks, Curtiss Howard |
|
|
Re: Question about Facelets devHi Curtiss,
Yes and no. Facelets is now ASL2 licensed so we're not reinventing the wheel, we use the original code, modified only to include Java 5 features (generics), repackage the classes and integrate the PDL semantics. However, if I have time, I want to do some performance tests with current code. More specifically, many handlers use a sorted array structure for attribute, therefore the loopup takes O(log n) while the original sort itself uses Collections.sort(), therefore a merge sort with O(n log n) complexity. Although this is memory footprint optimal, I'm pretty sure a HashMap construct would be fater, albeit a bit heavier on memory, so I'd like to do some testing to see how much faster/heavier a Map would be. Regards, ~ Simon On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Curtiss Howard <curtiss.howard@...> wrote:
|
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |