The advantage of any framework like SEAM or Grails is that it's a higher level of abstraction. It takes care of underlying details for you and, if it's designed and written well, makes things easier.
The disadvantage of any framework like SEAM or Grails is that it hides a lot of details from you. If you don't ever learn what's going on underneath you can find yourself in a world of trouble if you get stuck and don't know anything about the code that's generated for you.
Another disadvantage is that the assumptions they build into the model might not always be what you want. But changing them means breaking the path that they've laid down for you, which isn't easy.
My advice would be to use the framework and appreciate the advantages it brings, but don't use them as an excuse to stop learning what's happening underneath. Be the person who could write the whole thing by hand, without the framework, but chooses to use it for the leverage it provides.
JSP is a Java view technology running on the server machine which allows you to write template text in client side languages (like HTML, CSS, JavaScript, ect.). JSP supports taglibs, which are backed by pieces of Java code that let you control the page flow or output dynamically. A well-known taglib is JSTL. JSP also supports Expression Language, which can be used to access backend data (via attributes available in the page, request, session and application scopes), mostly in combination with taglibs.
When a JSP is requested for the first time or when the web app starts up, the servlet container will compile it into a class extending HttpServlet
and use it during the web app's lifetime. You can find the generated source code in the server's work directory. In for example Tomcat, it's the /work
directory. On a JSP request, the servlet container will execute the compiled JSP class and send the generated output (usually just HTML/CSS/JS) through the web server over a network to the client side, which in turn displays it in the web browser.
Servlet is a Java application programming interface (API) running on the server machine, which intercepts requests made by the client and generates/sends a response. A well-known example is the HttpServlet
which provides methods to hook on HTTP requests using the popular HTTP methods such as GET
and POST
. You can configure HttpServlet
s to listen to a certain HTTP URL pattern, which is configurable in web.xml
, or more recently with Java EE 6, with @WebServlet
annotation.
When a Servlet is first requested or during web app startup, the servlet container will create an instance of it and keep it in memory during the web app's lifetime. The same instance will be reused for every incoming request whose URL matches the servlet's URL pattern. You can access the request data by HttpServletRequest
and handle the response by HttpServletResponse
. Both objects are available as method arguments inside any of the overridden methods of HttpServlet
, such as doGet()
and doPost()
.
JSF is a component based MVC framework which is built on top of the Servlet API and provides components via taglibs which can be used in JSP or any other Java based view technology such as Facelets. Facelets is much more suited to JSF than JSP. It namely provides great templating capabilities such as composite components, while JSP basically only offers the <jsp:include>
for templating in JSF, so that you're forced to create custom components with raw Java code (which is a bit opaque and a lot of tedious work) when you want to replace a repeated group of components with a single component. Since JSF 2.0, JSP has been deprecated as view technology in favor of Facelets.
Note: JSP itself is NOT deprecated, just the combination of JSF with JSP is deprecated.
Note: JSP has great templating abilities by means of Taglibs, especially the (Tag File) variant. JSP templating in combination with JSF is what is lacking.
As being a MVC (Model-View-Controller) framework, JSF provides the FacesServlet
as the sole request-response Controller. It takes all the standard and tedious HTTP request/response work from your hands, such as gathering user input, validating/converting them, putting them in model objects, invoking actions and rendering the response. This way you end up with basically a JSP or Facelets (XHTML) page for View and a JavaBean class as Model. The JSF components are used to bind the view with the model (such as your ASP.NET web control does) and the FacesServlet
uses the JSF component tree to do all the work.
Related questions
Best Answer
JSF 2.0 disadvantages? Honestly, apart from the relative steep learning curve when you don't have a solid background knowledge about basic Web Development (HTML/CSS/JS, server side versus client side, etc) and the basic Java Servlet API (request/response/session, forwarding/redirecting, etc), no serious disadvantages comes to mind. JSF in its current release still needs to get rid of the negative image it gained during the early ages, during which there were several serious disadvantages.
JSF 1.0 (March 2004)
This was the initial release. It was cluttered with bugs in both the core and performance areas you don't want to know about. Your webapplication didn't always work as you'd intuitively expect. You as developer would run hard away crying.
JSF 1.1 (May 2004)
This was the bugfix release. The performance was still not much improved. There was also one major disadvantage: you can't inline HTML in the JSF page flawlessly. All plain vanilla HTML get rendered before the JSF component tree. You need to wrap all plain vanilla in
<f:verbatim>
tags so that they get included in the JSF component tree. Although this was as per the specification, this has received a lot of criticism. See also a.o. JSF/Facelets: why is it not a good idea to mix JSF/Facelets with HTML tags?JSF 1.2 (May 2006)
This was the first release of the new JSF development team lead by Ryan Lubke. The new team did a lot of great work. There were also changes in the spec. The major change was the improvement of the view handling. This not only fully detached JSF from JSP, so one could use a different view technology than JSP, but it also allowed developers to inline plain vanilla HTML in the JSF page without hassling with
<f:verbatim>
tags. Another major focus of the new team was improving the performance. During the lifetime of the Sun JSF Reference Implementation 1.2 (which was codenamed Mojarra since build 1.2_08, around 2008), practically every build got shipped with (major) performance improvements next to the usual (minor) bugfixes.The only serious disadvantage of JSF 1.x (including 1.2) is the lack of a scope in between the request and session scope, the so-called conversation scope. This forced developers to hassle with hidden input elements, unnecessary DB queries and/or abusing the session scope whenever one want to retain the initial model data in the subsequent request in order to successfully process validations, conversions, model changes and action invocations in the more complex webapplications. The pain could be softened by adopting a 3rd party library which retains the necessary data in the subsequent request like MyFaces Tomahawk
<t:saveState>
component, JBoss Seam conversation scope and MyFaces Orchestra conversation framework.Another disadvantage for HTML/CSS purists is that JSF uses the colon
:
as ID separator character to ensure uniqueness of the HTML elementid
in the generated HTML output, especially when a component is reused more than once in the view (templating, iterating components, etc). Because this is an illegal character in CSS identifiers, you would need to use the\
to escape the colon in CSS selectors, resulting in ugly and odd-looking selectors like#formId\:fieldId {}
or even#formId\3A fieldId {}
. See also How to use JSF generated HTML element ID with colon ":" in CSS selectors? However, if you're not a purist, read also By default, JSF generates unusable ids, which are incompatible with css part of web standards.Also, JSF 1.x didn't ship with Ajax facilities out of the box. Not really a technical disadvantage, but due to the Web 2.0 hype during that period, it became a functional disadvantage. Exadel was early to introduce Ajax4jsf, which was thoroughly developed during the years and became the core part of JBoss RichFaces component library. Another component libraries were shipped with builtin Ajax powers as well, the well known one being ICEfaces.
About halfway the JSF 1.2 lifetime, a new XML based view technology was introduced: Facelets. This offered enormous advantages above JSP, especially in the area of templating.
JSF 2.0 (June 2009)
This was the second major release, with Ajax as buzzword. There were a lot of technical and functional changes. JSP is replaced by Facelets as the default view technology and Facelets was expanded with capabilities to create custom components using pure XML (the so-called composite components). See also Why Facelets is preferred over JSP as the view definition language from JSF2.0 onwards?
Ajax powers were introduced in flavor of the
<f:ajax>
component which has much similarities with Ajax4jsf. Annotations and convention-over-configuration enhancements were introduced to kill the verbosefaces-config.xml
file as much as possible. Also, the default naming container ID separator character:
became configurable, so HTML/CSS purists could breathe relieved. All you need to do is to define it asinit-param
inweb.xml
with the namejavax.faces.SEPARATOR_CHAR
and ensuring that you aren't using the character yourself anywhere in client ID's, such as-
.Last but not least, a new scope was introduced, the view scope. It eliminated another major JSF 1.x disadvantage as described before. You just declare the bean
@ViewScoped
to enable the conversation scope without hassling all ways to retain the data in subsequent (conversational) requests. A@ViewScoped
bean will live as long as you're subsequently submitting and navigating to the same view (independently of the opened browser tab/window!), either synchronously or asynchronously (Ajax). See also Difference between View and Request scope in managed beans and How to choose the right bean scope?Although practically all disadvantages of JSF 1.x were eliminated, there are JSF 2.0 specific bugs which might become a showstopper. The
@ViewScoped
fails in tag handlers due to a chicken-egg issue in partial state saving. This is fixed in JSF 2.2 and backported in Mojarra 2.1.18. Also passing custom attributes like the HTML5data-xxx
is not supported. This is fixed in JSF 2.2 by new passthrough elements/attributes feature. Further the JSF implementation Mojarra has its own set of issues. Relatively a lot of them are related to the sometimes unintuitive behaviour of<ui:repeat>
, the new partial state saving implementation and the poorly implemented flash scope. Most of them are fixed in a Mojarra 2.2.x version.Around the JSF 2.0 time, PrimeFaces was introduced, based on jQuery and jQuery UI. It became the most popular JSF component library.
JSF 2.2 (May 2013)
With the introduction of JSF 2.2, HTML5 was used as buzzword even though this was technically just supported in all older JSF versions. See also JavaServer Faces 2.2 and HTML5 support, why is XHTML still being used. Most important new JSF 2.2 feature is the support for custom component attributes, hereby opening a world of possibilities, such as custom tableless radio button groups.
Apart from implementation specific bugs and some "annoying little things" such as inability to inject an EJB in a validator/converter (already fixed in JSF 2.3), there are not really major disadvantages in the JSF 2.2 specification.
Component based MVC vs Request based MVC
Some may opt that the major disadvantage of JSF is that it allows very little fine-grained control over the generated HTML/CSS/JS. That's not JSF's own, that's just because it's a component based MVC framework, not a request (action) based MVC framework. If a high degree of controlling the HTML/CSS/JS is your major requirement when considering a MVC framework, then you should already not be looking at a component based MVC framework, but at a request based MVC framework like Spring MVC. You only need to take into account that you'll have to write all that HTML/CSS/JS boilerplate yourself. See also Difference between Request MVC and Component MVC.
See also: