It's not a secret anymore!*
The moose likes JSF and the fly likes is there any certification on JSF? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » JSF
Bookmark "is there any certification on JSF?" Watch "is there any certification on JSF?" New topic
Author

is there any certification on JSF?

sridhar bvap
Greenhorn

Joined: Mar 12, 2008
Posts: 19
hi to all. I want to do certification on JSF. so, Please let me know the information regarding certification on JSF.
thank you one and all.
Mark Spritzler
ranger
Sheriff

Joined: Feb 05, 2001
Posts: 17249
    
    6

"sridhar.in.forums ",
Welcome to the JavaRanch.

We're a friendly group, but we do require members to have valid display names.

Display names must be two words: your first name, a space, then your last name. Fictitious names are not allowed.

Please edit your profile and correct your display name since accounts with invalid display names get deleted.


Perfect World Programming, LLC - Two Laptop Bag - Tube Organizer
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way FAQ
Bryan Basham
author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 30, 2001
Posts: 199
Originally posted by sridhar.in.forums:
hi to all. I want to do certification on JSF. so, Please let me know the information regarding certification on JSF.
thank you one and all.


Hello Sridhar,

I can tell you that Sun Microsystems does not have a certification on JSF currently; however, I have recommended that they incorporate some JSF topics into Sun's SCWCD exam.

I do not know of any other company or organization that certifies Java web techologies.

HTH,
Bryan
Arjan Times
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 35
Originally posted by Bryan Basham:

I can tell you that Sun Microsystems does not have a certification on JSF currently; however, I have recommended that they incorporate some JSF topics into Sun's SCWCD exam.


That's probably not going to happen. SCWCD has recently been updated (well, it's name was updated and some 'bugs' where fixed) so it'll be at least a couple of years till the next SCWCD update. Next to that Bert Bates among others has already mentioned that JSF is way too large to squeeze into the SCWCD exam.

So I guess if you want to be certified you have to learn about Struts and JSP/JSTL, while the rest of world is using JSF. Sad...


SCJP 5 (90%)
Anirudh Vyas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 23, 2006
Posts: 93
I don't understand why JSF has to be on the list of certification at all. Personally, I'd like to see JSF turn into Wicket Framework. Currently just about everything in JSF is a nightmare. Customization of components, Data Tables, sorting by columns (try this when the data is too high and you have paginate? ...) The JSF spec not to mention has loop holes. Phases are not aligned at all.

Try Wicket my friends, you will be surprised and pleased. Also it doesn't make sense to have a "framework spec" certification in my opinion. A language certification is OK, a specific language feature or spec which has been used for a long time is also Good, (Servlet spec for example) ... but JSF is still nascent in my opinion (If they wish to clean it up and come up with better solutions rather than Web Beans of Gavin King which will not solve the problem but merely align JSF with EJB ... both technologies which are not so great strictly speaking.)

Remember there are myriad of Component frameworks, Wicket shines the best, second Tapestry and then rest all is just not worth working with. Sadly, many have not realized this so far.

Regards
Vyas, Anirudh

Regards
Vyas, Anirudh


Vyas, Anirudh
Arjan Times
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 35
Originally posted by Anirudh Vyas:
I don't understand why JSF has to be on the list of certification at all. Personally, I'd like to see JSF turn into Wicket Framework.


Why would you want that? If you like Wicket, just use that...


Currently just about everything in JSF is a nightmare.


That's your opinion, I find JSF to be very elegant and extremely extensible.

But let me guess, you are the kind of person who thinks stuff like Facelets and Seam or perhaps even Richfaces 'fixes' things broken in JSF right?
Anirudh Vyas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 23, 2006
Posts: 93
Have you ever used Wicket boss ?, I am asking this question because i was annoyed in the exact same way when someone referred Wicket framework to me at Work.

And no, i don't think anything is fixed in JSF dude, Just take a look at spec 1.2 you would know what i am talking about. Phases, are not aligned for one. Components customization is a nightmare in jsf. Then its JSP used in JSF. I think JSP is a straight violation of MVC design pattern. JSP can contain blah blah logic, Even custom tags are a hack to prevent people from writing logic themselves, but it is still not pure MVC.

I think it'd be better if you try something out to say stuff. I have been using JSF for last 3 1/2 years or so. Production support in JSF can be nightmarish.

Trinidad tried to improve things but its all crap. JBOSS Seam does something in an efficient way, but its the same ol story.

I would appreciate if you first try Wicket before bashing it out. (And yes i know the feeling of "Yet" another framework, believe me you would not regret trying it out first.) Before our replies enter the chain mode. I am calling it quits on this one. You can do what you wish anyways, but i just stated my opinion.


Regards
Vyas, Anirudh

[ April 20, 2008: Message edited by: Anirudh Vyas ]
[ April 20, 2008: Message edited by: Anirudh Vyas ]
Arjan Times
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 35
Originally posted by Anirudh Vyas:

And no, i don't think anything is fixed in JSF dude, Just take a look at spec 1.2 you would know what i am talking about.


Perhaps you don't exactly understand what I mean. The thing is, JSF in its core is very simple and basic. It's more of a meta framework (a framework core) to build stuff on.

Take for example your little rant against the datatable, which you used to point out that JSF basically s*cks. A remark like that is quite typical for people who don't get what JSF is about. The DataTable component that comes with the base JSF implementation is just that. An 'example'. It doesn't point to any weakness in the JSF architecture itself. The whole point of JSF is among others that it standardizes a component model that others leverage to take advantage of.

You might want to contrast this with the Java language itself. Sun created the Java language, and at the same time also delivered a small library with it. As we all know, the JDK 1.0 library was small and its classes at times a bit cumbersome and arcane. Yet, the language itself facilitated that others could build great software with it. The absence of some basic classes in that JDK 1.0 library might have been unfortunate, but in no way was this related to a weakness in the Java language itself. Over time, the standard library expanded, and a lot of quality classes were included, without changing the language.

This is currently the same with JSF. The basic infrastructure is there now. The standard set of components is extremely basic and sometimes barely usable. Yet, see what component sets have been build that take advantage of the spec.


Phases, are not aligned for one.


What do you mean by that? Phases come right after each other. Restore / create view, apply request values, perform validation and conversion, etc. With what do you want to align that? It alligns perfectly well with the best practices of how one would do things manually. It's in anyway exactly the order in which I have been doing things in the past using Servlet based MVC. If you -really- want to replace the JSF lifecycle (and its associated) phases with something else, then even this is allowed in JSF. You'd be truly amazed at how much you can decorate, extend, or replace in JSF.


Components customization is a nightmare in jsf.


Not in the core spec. Inherit your Java class from some (UI) component, override some behavior and presto, instant customization of a component. Of course you mean that to use such a component on a JSP page, you have to create a taghandler and an entry in some TLD file as well. That's unfortunate indeed, but know what? JSP is just -a- method to create the component tree and hand it over to the faces controller, not -the- method.


Then its JSP used in JSF. I think JSP is a straight violation of MVC design pattern. JSP can contain blah blah logic


You are -so- not getting it. Like I said above, JSP is -a- method to construct a tree out of a set of components. Nothing stops you at creating this tree in pure Java. And guess what things you can do in pure Java? Do business logic... According to you, there almost can't be an MVC design pattern. If you're doing a Java, C++, C#, whatever client side application, the view layer is typically composed using that language; e.g. JButton someButton = new JButton(); somePanel.addWidget(someButton); You know the drill. Now -that's- MVC as pure as it can get. Yet, this way of working theoretically allows you to mix business logic (not just logic, but business logic) in your view layer. You would be stupid to do so, but it's possible.

With JSP, you can do so too. Mix business logic in the part that is supposed to create the component tree and nothing more. You would be an *ss if you did so, but it's indeed possible. Nevertheless, JSP itself does not violate the MVC pattern. Namely, this pattern does not exclude the use of logic in the view. It's actually perfectly legal to use logic; RENDER logic.

Of course there is another often used method for creating the component tree, and that is Facelets. To reiterate my above statement; the fact that Facelets exists is -not- a proof that JSF was broken and needed something like Facelets to fix it. Quite the contrary, JSF in its core was specifically created so that something like Facelets could be made possible. There is absolutely no dependency on JSP anywhere in the JSF spec, nor is there any such dependency in the current implementations. JSP in only the default method, but absolutely not a required one for a JSF application.
Anirudh Vyas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 23, 2006
Posts: 93
Originally posted by Arjan Times:


You are -so- not getting it. Like I said above, JSP is -a- method to construct a tree out of a set of components. Nothing stops you at creating this tree in pure Java. And guess what things you can do in pure Java? Do business logic... According to you, there almost can't be an MVC design pattern.

Wicket framework man. try it and then come back here to say how purity of MVC can be maintained. there are solutions right now like Velocity which can help but they are not perfect.



If you're doing a Java, C++, C#, whatever client side application, the view layer is typically composed using that language; e.g. JButton someButton = new JButton(); somePanel.addWidget(someButton); You know the drill. Now -that's- MVC as pure as it can get.


I cut it off right there. All the things you wrote are cool and that is MVC. Now lets evaluate rest of the stuff, Why the hell do i need "ANYTHING ELSE" on my HTML page or display or markup other than HTML, or may be CSS or java script logic ? WHY? (I don't intend to in Wicket).



Yet, this way of working theoretically allows you to mix business logic (not just logic, but business logic) in your view layer. You would be stupid to do so, but it's possible.


Again, be realistic dude, are you seriously going to be telling me that you have code reviewed things and have NOT seen if else constructs in JSPs ? Logic is violation of View for me. You know that its a fact. I live in a practical world where this happens more often than you'd like to believe. REALITY CHECK, hello?!


Nevertheless, JSP itself does not violate the MVC pattern. Namely, this pattern does not exclude the use of logic in the view. It's actually perfectly legal to use logic; RENDER logic.

Its a joke, entire post of yours, what is MVC called ? MODEL - VIEW - CONTROLLER. Its called View for a reason. I question such practices where i have to mix anything getting converted to Java on some translation thingie and then something blah blah happens to it ... invocation of service and other crap. I question those practices.

Components ? there is nothing in spec about renderers which makes different things rendered differently, infact renderers are not even mentioned once, they did it that way so that they can compete?

It takes me a line of code at best to customize component in wicket. It takes me MUCH MUCH less effort to do the same in tapestry, then why would I use JSF ?

Now as i said, been using JSF for years now, and may be in time you would realize what my point of view is. Hopefully you do. Until then i am afraid i have nothing more to offer in this conversation.

So this would be my last reply on this.

Thanks and appreciate your time.

Vyas, Anirudh


[ April 21, 2008: Message edited by: Anirudh Vyas ]
[ April 21, 2008: Message edited by: Anirudh Vyas ]
John Willeams White
Greenhorn

Joined: Dec 02, 2007
Posts: 7
Originally posted by Anirudh Vyas:

Why the hell do i need "ANYTHING ELSE" on my HTML page or display or markup other than HTML, or may be CSS or java script logic ? WHY? (I don't intend to in Wicket).
[...]
Logic is violation of View for me. You know that its a fact. I live in a practical world where this happens more often than you'd like to believe. REALITY CHECK, hello?!


Anirudh, this kind of topic easily turns in to a flamewar, so let's keep it realistic. You seem to be blinded by the way that Wicket happens to implement MVC. Nothing in the definition of the MVC concept says that the view part has to consist of a static composition of UI components/widgets.

Your overreaction triggered by hearing the terms "logic" and "view" being used in the same sentence is understandable, but unjust. Read back what the other poster wrote: it's not about application logic or business logic, but about render logic. Render logic includes expressions for simply enabling or disabling some graphical artifact, or for repeating (a group of) widgets a couple of times.

It may not be the Wicket way, but since when does Wicket holds a monopoly on the term MVC?

MVC has been in use for quite some time and there is no single way that a view should be constructed. It may be a resource file that needs to be edited by a dialog editor (Visual Basic and PoweBuilder among others use that approach), it may be build programatically using an imperative language (toolkits such as Swing, Motif, GTK, Qt, MFC, SWT, etc use that approach), it may be a template consisting of components explicitly bound to code behind/backing beans (ASP.NET and JSF use that approach), or it may be some other variation like the way XUL works.

The only thing the pattern says is that controller and model related code should not be expressed in the view. Thus, executing a query to update a user's balance with 1 euro, right between the view code is definitely not ok. However, an if statement in the view code that includes some JPanel in the current dialog if the user is in the role "abc" is certainly ok.

I can only advice you to carefully study what MVC is really about, and don't just assume without thinking that the Wicket way is the one and only way.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: is there any certification on JSF?
 
Similar Threads
Cerification in JSF
Passed SCJP 6
is there any jsf (vendor-independent) certification?
JSF Certification
certification