Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6561903
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 25, 20262026-05-25T13:38:42+00:00 2026-05-25T13:38:42+00:00

I’ve read this several times now: some developers aren’t advocates of interleaving JSF/Facelets tags

  • 0

I’ve read this several times now: some developers aren’t advocates of interleaving JSF/Facelets tags with HTML tags in their XHTML files. Obviously the HTML tags won’t be part of the UI component tree, but what’s the disadvantage of that?

I often find code examples where the authors do that kind of mixing:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-facelets/

http://www.packtpub.com/article/facelets-components-in-jsf-1.2

http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596529246

“Seam in Action” also interleaves JSF/Facelets and HTML tags.

I’m confused about what to actually use. I started out mixing tags, but I’m beginning to believe it was probably not the right choice. However, I fail to see why the puristic approach is preferrable.

I know for certain that I have a table where the JSF datatable doesn’t give me enough flexibility to display what I need to, so doing it puristically isn’t possible.

Furthermore I’m wondering why none of the examples above use f:view etc. instead of the hardcoded html, head, body etc. tags.

Can anyone please clear this up for me?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-25T13:38:43+00:00Added an answer on May 25, 2026 at 1:38 pm

    During the JSF 1.0/1.1 ages this was indeed "not a good idea", because all the HTML was not automatically taken in the JSF component tree when using JSP as view technology. All plain HTML was eagerly by JSP rendered before the JSF component tree. E.g.

    <p>Lorem ipsum <h:outputText value="#{bean.value1}"> dolor sit amet<p>
    <p>Consectetur adipiscing <h:inputText value="#{bean.value2}" /> elit</p>
    

    got rendered as

    <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet<p>
    <p>Consectetur adipiscing elit</p>
    
    value1
    <input type="text" value="value2" />
    

    To fix this you would need to bring <f:verbatim> in.

    <f:verbatim><p>Lorem ipsum </f:verbatim><h:outputText value="#{bean.value1}"><f:verbatim> dolor sit amet<p></f:verbatim>
    <f:verbatim><p>Consectetur adipiscing </f:verbatim><h:inputText value="#{bean.value2}" /><f:verbatim> elit</p></f:verbatim>
    

    This was a real maintenance pain. This was one of the major reasons why JSF 1.0/1.1 was so hated.

    Since JSF 1.2, with the new view handler, the <f:verbatim> was not necessary anymore. Developers can now breathe relieved. Moreover, the new view handler allowed JSF to use a different view technology than JSP and this way Facelets was born.

    See also:

    • What are the main disadvantages of Java Server Faces 2.0?
    • Why Facelets is preferred over JSP as the view definition language from JSF2.0 onwards?
    • Is it possible to use JSF+Facelets with HTML 4/5?
    • JavaServer Faces 2.2 and HTML5 support, why is XHTML still being used
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a string like this: La Torre Eiffel paragonata all&#8217;Everest What PHP function
link Im having trouble converting the html entites into html characters, (&# 8217;) i
For some reason, after submitting a string like this Jack’s Spindle from a text
I'm trying to convert HTML to plain text. I get many &\#8217; &\#8220; etc.
this is what i have right now Drawing an RSS feed into the php,
I have this code to decode numeric html entities to the UTF8 equivalent character.
I'm parsing an RSS feed that has an &#8217; in it. SimpleXML turns this
I have just tried to save a simple *.rtf file with some websites and
Configuring TinyMCE to allow for tags, based on a customer requirement. My config is
I'm not entirely sure how I managed to jack this up. http://pretty-senshi.com If you

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.