JSF/Facelets: why is it not a good idea to mix JSF/Facelets with HTML tags?
Solution 1:
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
Solution 2:
As a general rule, I use a mix betweek HTML and Facelets tags in the layout/template pages. But for the actual content pages I try to only use the JSF tags available with my JSF library of choice (JSF + RichFaces).
That way I can have more control of which elements to show and hide, as well as the contents within each element, but I can still hard-code my main page layout in the facelets template file.