aspose file tools*
The moose likes JSF and the fly likes ADF vs. RichFaces? What Would You Chose? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » JSF
Bookmark "ADF vs. RichFaces? What Would You Chose?" Watch "ADF vs. RichFaces? What Would You Chose?" New topic
Author

ADF vs. RichFaces? What Would You Chose?

Hatem Alimam
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 14, 2008
Posts: 30
Hi Ranchers,

A Question came to my mind if you have a new brand project (JSF), What would chose ADF(Oracle) Or RichFaces(JBoss) ? And Why ? .

This is a good question .

Ok all that I know is Richfaces version is 3.3.2 , And ADF is 11.

I have developed a project and my choice was ADF 10 (10 months ago).
But i felt my self kind of tided to some rules ... which it was a nightmare for me ...

I saw the live demos , actually there are tempting components in both sides .

So what do you think ADF Or Richfaces ???


Thanks guys .


SCJP 5.0, SCWCD 1.4, SCBCD 3.0 with 100 score
Edwin Keeton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 214

Don't be misled by version numbers.

ADF Faces is a great suite of components. For me though, it's a little too tightly tied in to the whole ADF framework.

RichFaces is another great suite of components. (YAGCS?) Some might find it too closely bound to the JBoss stack.

If I had to choose between only these two, I would choose RichFaces.


SCJP, SCWCD
Kavita Tipnis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 21, 2008
Posts: 177
I have not worked with ADF faces, but I believe it comes with a price tag..
As for Richfaces, a number of positives would be
1) Free! and Open Source too so you can extend any basic richfaces components if the need be
2) A neat ajax support with a4j suite of components
3) It can also integrate with Apache Tomahawk
4) An extensive list of components for creating a well designed/modeled MVC CRUD web app
5) I find the base components easier to extend and build custom components.

A couple negatives
1) Might have issues with several browsers
2) Look and feel is ok but a little rigid

As I said I can only speak for richfaces , it works great as I was working with Visual Web JSF (with Netbeans) which was too primitive
I tried Icefaces too, but was not a hit with me (YMMV)
Tim Holloway
Saloon Keeper

Joined: Jun 25, 2001
Posts: 16246
    
  21

I think that Oracle opened up ADF as Apache MyFaces Trinidad, so price is probably not a consideration. Oracle does create verty pretty UI components these days, although some could say they're not very exciting.

RichFaces has extensive AJAX support, however, which is something that really wasn't part of the featureset back when ADF was first created, so I don't know if/how well ADF has grown to support AJAX.

When I first started using extended JSF controls, I used the Tomahawk set, but I gradually migrated to RichFaces when I needed the extra capabilities, since most of the Tomahawk features are supported in RichFaces. I have a few legacy pages that use both tagsets, but mostly I'm pure RichFaces at the moment. ADF was in flux at the time, so I didn't spend much time on it.


Customer surveys are for companies who didn't pay proper attention to begin with.
Hatem Alimam
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 14, 2008
Posts: 30
Kavita Tipnis wrote:
2) Look and feel is ok but a little rigid


As I surfed through Richfaces I came into "skinning" thing, and as I understood it affects the style of richfaces components through normal CSS classes ?

On the other hand ADF visualization is kick-ass tech, but a little too complicated to apply,and it's good for really big enterprise web applications.
I believe Richfaces is cool for me so far.
more opinions would be really helpful.

big thanks.
Dave Brown
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 08, 2005
Posts: 301
You may want to look into IceFaces also which offeres a pretty rich component set and pretty good support forum for when you have any questions/problems.


Regards, Dave Brown
SCJP 6 - [url]http://www.dbws.net/[/url] - Check out Grails Forum
Hatem Alimam
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 14, 2008
Posts: 30
aha icefaces is good but a little tricky ..... a lot of bugs .... not flixable much...
in the end Richfaces is very very good framework and it worth to take a look.

Best Regards.
Rainer Eschen
author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 24, 2009
Posts: 75
Hatem can you give some examples what exactly means:

* A lot of bugs
* Not flexible much

If you asked me about 2 years ago, I had to answer: "You're right, but the community helps in the most cases." Today I can not recognize this.

ICEfaces has the capability to be "the" JSF 2.0 framework in the near future. It supports a lot of what becomes standard right now out of the box for years. Additionally, it delivers the best implementation for AJAX Push and the easiest programming model for this. Skinning, etc. is on board from the early beginning.

I suggest to develop prototypes with the most important aspects for your project using:

* ICEfaces
* RichFaces
* ADF / Trinidad

Then try to decide. Suggestions don't really help if you don't have a look at what you really need. We chose ICEfaces because we wanted to have a tight integration with Facelets and a stable and flexible skinning. Today we are happy to get the best Push implementation for free. A big plus is that you don't have to write a single line of JavaScript, get a partial submit that frees you from having a look at what has to be updated and when. Even the JSF 2.0 specification doesn't deliver this.


ICEfaces book . ICEcube . ICEfusion . Scrum
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: ADF vs. RichFaces? What Would You Chose?