Enable javascript in your browser for better experience. Need to know to enable it?

÷ÈÓ°Ö±²¥

As informa??es desta p¨¢gina n?o est?o completamente dispon¨ªveis no seu idioma de escolha. Esperamos disponibiliza-las integralmente em outros idiomas em breve. Para ter acesso ¨¤s informa??es no idioma de sua prefer¨ºncia, fa?a o download do PDF ²¹±ç³Ü¨ª.
Atualizado em : May 05, 2015
N?O ENTROU NA EDI??O ATUAL
Este blip n?o est¨¢ na edi??o atual do Radar. Se esteve em uma das ¨²ltimas edi??es, ¨¦ prov¨¢vel que ainda seja relevante. Se o blip for mais antigo, pode n?o ser mais relevante e nossa avalia??o pode ser diferente hoje. Infelizmente, n?o conseguimos revisar continuamente todos os blips de edi??es anteriores do Radar. Saiba mais
May 2015
Evite ?

We continue to see teams run into trouble using JSF - JavaServer Faces - and are recommending you avoid this technology. Teams seem to choose JSF because it is a Java EE standard without really evaluating whether the programming model suits them. We think JSF is flawed because its programming model encourages use of its own abstractions rather than fully embracing the underlying web model. JSF, like ASP.NET webforms, attempts to create stateful component trees on top HTML markup and the stateless HTTP protocol. The improvements in JSF 2.0 and 2.2, such as the introduction of stateless views and the promotion of GET, are steps in the right direction, maybe even an acknowledgement that the original model was flawed, but we feel this is a too little too late. Rather than dealing with the complexity of JSF we recommend teams use simple frameworks and work closely with web technologies including HTTP, HTML and CSS.

Jan 2015
Evite ?
Jul 2014
Evite ?
We continue to see teams run into trouble using JSF?- JavaServer Faces - and are recommending you avoid this technology. Teams seem to choose JSF because it is a Java EE standard without really evaluating whether the programming model suits them. We think JSF is flawed because its programming model encourages use of its own abstractions rather than fully embracing the underlying web model. JSF, like ASP.NET webforms, attempts to create stateful component trees on top HTML markup and the stateless HTTP protocol. The improvements in JSF 2.0 and 2.2, such as the introduction of stateless views and the promotion of GET, are steps in the right direction, maybe even an acknowledgement that the original model was flawed, but we feel this is a too little too late. Rather than dealing with the complexity of JSF we recommend teams use simple frameworks and work closely with web technologies including HTTP, HTML and CSS.
Jan 2014
Evite ?
Publicado : Jan 28, 2014

Inscreva-se para receber a newsletter do Technology Radar

?

?

Seja assinante

?

?

Visite nosso arquivo para acessar os volumes anteriores