March 19, 2013 at 10:50 pm #19770
Hey, I was reading a blog post from about a year ago and it said you were working on Prettyfaces 4, is this still active? I am evaluation using Rewrite instead of prettyfaces, but while I gain a lot in flexibility, I also lose the neat xml configuration features and it’s a bit more complicated to use. I don’t really know what to do, If prettyfaces 4 is going to come out, then I’d be switching from prettyfaces 3, to rewrite 1.1, to prettyfaces 4, which doesn’t sound like a good plan at least for now, then I look at maven an it says 2.0.0.alpha5. I don’t know if there will be API changes, etc.
Also the documentation for Rewrite is not as polished as the one for prettyfaces (I’m being generous here, I barely found sample code compared to the extensive prettyfaces doc), is rewrite used in production? What must I do?
I hope you haven’t dropped prettyfaces 4, this project is so good I think it should be added to the spec, what is JSF without path parameters and nice looking URLs? Certainly not as neat.March 20, 2013 at 8:54 am #23489
the situation regarding PrettyFaces 4 has changed since the blog post you are referring to. There will be no PrettyFaces 4.0 release like you will probably expect it. Our main focus in last months has been to improve the Rewrite JSF integration module. This JSF module is now at a very stable state and supports nearly everything PrettyFaces 3.x did.
So you could think of it as:
PrettyFaces 4.0 = Rewrite 2.0 + JSF integration module
Currently you have the following options:
- Keep using PrettyFaces 3.3.x: You could do this. But we don’t recommend that. PrettyFaces 3 is very stable but we won’t add any new feature for it any more, because our focus has shifted to Rewrite.
- Use Rewrite 2.0 with the PrettyFaces backward compatibility module: There is a Rewrite module that allows you to use your old PrettyFaces 3.x configuration (annotations and XML) to configure Rewrite. This actually means that you will be using Rewrite but won’t have to change any code of your existing application that was built with PrettyFaces 3.x. This is our recommended way for a smooth transition to Rewrite for existing PrettyFaces users. I’m for myself using this module in a project that went into production a few weeks ago. Everything works fine.
- Use Rewrite 2.0 with the JSF integration module: This is the recommended way for new projects. There is a completely new API, but we think it us much more consistent and easier to use. You could have a look at the bookstore showcase application  to get an idea of how the new API will look like.
We think the latest Alpha version of Rewrite is very stable. Actually we are planning to do a final API review this week, but I don’t think that there will be many changes. We are VERY close to get Rewrite 2.0 out. I know that we are currently lacking documentation, but that’s something we will address as soon as 2.0 is out. But if you post questions on the forums, you will usually get an answer from the core developers right on time.
BTW: We don’t support XML configuration any more, because we believe that a fluent Java API is much more easy to use from a user perspective. It is very easy to use and you get code completion in your IDE in a way, that you don’t get from XML. So if you are using Rewrite, you will have to configure the framework either by using the fluent Java API (if you want to have the configuration at one single place like in the XML case) or by using annotations (if you like to have the configuration close to the affected code).
I hope this helps to understand the situation a bit. Feel free to ask if you have any questions.March 21, 2013 at 1:11 am #23490
Lincoln Baxter IIIKeymaster
Christian usually beats me to answer posts nowadaysApril 2, 2013 at 9:11 pm #23491
Thanks very much for your quick response. I will follow your advice and try the integration module, JSF really is not the same without these URL-rewriting capabilities. Keep up the good work!April 8, 2013 at 5:58 pm #23511
The forum ‘PrettyFaces Users’ is closed to new topics and replies.