Für diese Seite gibt es noch keine deutsche Übersetzung. Bitte lesen Sie solange die englische Version. Wir bitten Sie um Verständnis.

Why does AngularFaces use yet another EL syntax?

AngularFaces makes a distinction between JSF attributes remaining on the server and attributes that are synchronized with the AngularJS scope:

The brand of the car is part of the AngularJS scope, while the color is dealt with exclusively on the server.

Originally, I had the idea to simply put every JSF bean attribute into the AngularJS scope. This didn't work out because I ran into technical problems, so I replaced the JSF syntax # {...} by an Angular-style syntax { {...}}.

In the meantime I've learned how to overcome the technical problems, but I've become fond of the syntax. First, they give you better control over which attributes are sent to the client. Second, AngularJS pages itself use { {...}}, so the mustache syntax fits in nicely. After all, the general idea is to make JSF views look like ordinary HTML/AngularJS pages.

Why does AngularFaces use yet another EL syntax?

AngularFaces makes a distinction between JSF attributes remaining on the server and attributes that are synchronized with the AngularJS scope:

The brand of the car is part of the AngularJS scope, while the color is dealt with exclusively on the server.

Originally, I had the idea to simply put every JSF bean attribute into the AngularJS scope. This didn't work out because I ran into technical problems, so I replaced the JSF syntax # {...} by an Angular-style syntax { {...}}.

In the meantime I've learned how to overcome the technical problems, but I've become fond of the syntax. First, they give you better control over which attributes are sent to the client. Second, AngularJS pages itself use { {...}}, so the mustache syntax fits in nicely. After all, the general idea is to make JSF views look like ordinary HTML/AngularJS pages.

A página ainda não foi traduzido para o Português. Por favor, leia a tradução em Inglês. Pedimos desculpas por qualquer inconveniente.

Why does AngularFaces use yet another EL syntax?

AngularFaces makes a distinction between JSF attributes remaining on the server and attributes that are synchronized with the AngularJS scope:

The brand of the car is part of the AngularJS scope, while the color is dealt with exclusively on the server.

Originally, I had the idea to simply put every JSF bean attribute into the AngularJS scope. This didn't work out because I ran into technical problems, so I replaced the JSF syntax # {...} by an Angular-style syntax { {...}}.

In the meantime I've learned how to overcome the technical problems, but I've become fond of the syntax. First, they give you better control over which attributes are sent to the client. Second, AngularJS pages itself use { {...}}, so the mustache syntax fits in nicely. After all, the general idea is to make JSF views look like ordinary HTML/AngularJS pages.

Für diese Seite gibt es noch keine deutsche Übersetzung. Bitte lesen Sie solange die englische Version. Wir bitten Sie um Verständnis.

Why does AngularFaces use yet another EL syntax?

AngularFaces makes a distinction between JSF attributes remaining on the server and attributes that are synchronized with the AngularJS scope:

The brand of the car is part of the AngularJS scope, while the color is dealt with exclusively on the server.

Originally, I had the idea to simply put every JSF bean attribute into the AngularJS scope. This didn't work out because I ran into technical problems, so I replaced the JSF syntax # {...} by an Angular-style syntax { {...}}.

In the meantime I've learned how to overcome the technical problems, but I've become fond of the syntax. First, they give you better control over which attributes are sent to the client. Second, AngularJS pages itself use { {...}}, so the mustache syntax fits in nicely. After all, the general idea is to make JSF views look like ordinary HTML/AngularJS pages.