Primeface vs icefaces vs richfaces update#

Primeface vs icefaces vs richfaces update#

When you're trying to do something relatively simple Icefaces does a really great job of a small DOM update and a responsive UI. Icefaces handles AJAX without much work on your end. I am still relatively new to JSF (1 year development time) but I've been trying to do each new subset in our research phase with a different suite. Once you start to use the components in PrimeFaces for things other than trivial showcase examples you quickly run into a lot of problems and limitations (I'm grateful for PrimeFaces, but thought I would provide a little constructive feedback).I realize this is a late post here, but since I was looking to expand out and didn't see it: I really recommend that you look into Primefaces as well. I also hope that 2.2/2.3 focuses more on fixing up bugs and making the component library more useable in general. Post on Primefaces forum that is quite revelent : Thanks Mathieu for correcting the spelling of the article! ) ĭear Icefaces, Primefaces and Richfaces users, if you see some improvements please post a comment. If a winner should be decided it would be Richfaces since I have been quite disappointed by Primefaces. Richfaces is between Primefaces and Icefaces closest to Primefaces. Icefaces has clearly the worst performance on datatable on all test. Primefaces has the best datatable implementation although buggy (I hope Primefaces 2.2 will correct all the issues). To be complete the generic components (tab, tree.) have to be tested too in order to make a robust conclusion. Richfaces : 9400 requests ~900MB : ~100KBĬonclusionThe page used for the test is quite simple and does not reflect a real page nor the global performance of these frameworks.I took the JVM memory consumption and the number of requests done : You can basically have three time more users with Primeface than Icefaces (considering it is growing lineary)īecause Icefaces OOM my JVM very quickly without a cookie manager I did a very simple calculation on session size. Test setup : Core 2 Duo 3Ghz 64bits, 2GB dedicated to the JVM. Server loadI have created a simple unit test which executes 10 concurrent threads with a cookies manager.

So the question is, why does it do that when we don't need them? Knowing that I put an id only on the components i needed to update that means JSF autogenerate the other Ids by itself. The table contains ids and classes only on rows.īut what if the data changes on the server side (delete or add) ? An user action on the paginator doesn't update it. The paginator is updated on the client side. The Icefaces paginator block is quite big, more than the datatable block. The table contains ids and classes on all cells. Icefaces and Richfaces send the paginator and the table. Richfaces can gain 80KB by using JQuery min and be below 200KB. Icefaces and Richfaces don't used minified JS. Creating an unit test with HtmlUnit is quite simple and I did not met issue requesting Icefaces, Primefaces and Richfaces for the purpose of this article. Page size benchmarkI'm measuring the page size and the ajax response size with HtmlUnit. The datable is binded to an ajax paginator which display books 15 by 15. Test setupThe datatable will display a list of books with 3 columns : ISBN, author and title. I will focus on efficiency : page size, ajax request/response size, server load, and not on features. In this article I will bench the datatables of 3 JSF2 components frameworks :