Do you think lot of developers are going to use JSF in future?
Thanks for your valuable time.
Yes, simply because it's an "endorsed specification (i.e., developed through the JCP). Companies tend to use technologies based on JCP-produced specifications, because they know that there will be tool support, books, classes, developers skilled in using the technologies and a controlled evolution of the technologies for some years. And developers tend to learn the technologies that companies use, to ensure that they have employment opportunities.
Hans Bergsten, email@example.com<br />Author of O'Reilly's<br />- JavaServer Pages,<br />- JavaServer Faces<br /><a href="http://www.hansbergsten.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.hansbergsten.com/</a>
from a personal point of view : Again, as with all new technologies, there is a learning curve and it depends on your own situation whether you use/learn it or not. Maybe an architect stresses its use in the company that you work for. Maybe you want to switch jobs and it looks good on your cv to have some exposure to it.
from a business point of view : Once architects (good ones) show jsf possibilities to management and decision makers, it will break through. Decision makers/management are not up to date with latest technologies and therefore this needs to be brought to their attention. This may take a while.
And yes i hope that I will use it in near future. But i porbably need to switch projects
Yes, to some extent. They are similar frameworks and I'm sure some people will prefer Tapestry over JSF, the same way some people prefer Velocity over JSP. From what I've seen of Tapestry, there's a lot to like and I'm working on bringing some of the same ideas to a future version of the JSF spec. In terms of "market share", though, I'm pretty sure that a majority will go for JSF (simply because it's a JCP-produced specification with broad vendor support).
Note that with a custom JSF ViewHandler, you can come very close to the Tapestry model based on pure HTML templates and separate component specification files. I show an example of this in my book, and the article in the pipeline that I mentioned in another thread will also describe this option in more detail.