RichFaces Vs PrimeFaces (for performance) [closed]

问题:

I am using JSF 2.0 and I am looking for a copmponent library with minimal load in terms of performance. Which one is better to use if I have choice between RichFaces and PrimeFaces? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?

回答1:

Currently Primefaces is the only component lib that I know of (for now) that has a complete JSF2 implementation. There are bugs and problems, and some components are to be rewritten, but development is lightning fast, the communication is excellent (I don't remember a single post on their support forum that hasn't been answered by Cagatay himself), and it is moving in the right direction (the new theming system is an example of that IMHO). I think Primefaces will be a mature JSF2 component lib by the end of the year.

There are some others, like Icefaces that I played with for a short time, but they are moving slowly and like I said, none of them are really JSF2 yet. Part of the reason for this is that Mojarra, the Sun reference implementation is quite buggy, and there some serious bugs that these component lib developers are waiting for to get fixed.

So my vote is definitely on Primefaces for now, we'll see how it will look like later.

回答2:

Here is my comparison:

• Richfaces is definitely more mature and possibly you may get developers who are experts in.
• Primefaces has more components but lack combobox available in Richfaces. Richfaces does not have a bunch of common components like the "star rating" component, captcha component and password strength.
• Primefaces is easier to skin since it is based on themeroller. It also has more themes than that is available in Richfaces.
• Primefaces is tiny and can be implemented in the code easily - not too many dependencies.
• Richfaces does not support JSF 2.0 till now (Nov 2010) - Primefaces has a stable release that supports JSF 2.0
• Richfaces component growth is pretty much absent... No new components added in the last few years. The component library remains stale.

My recommendation:

• Choose Primefaces if your application is client facing and need many AJAX components.
• Choose Richfaces (or Primefaces) if it is an application that is used by your internal clients.

Hari Gangadharan

回答3:

If you are evaluating PrimeFaces, following page would help;

http://www.primefaces.org/whyprimefaces.html

回答4:

Both are cool. Richfaces is more developed and tested generally, since primefaces came out later than RF. Just have a look at the component showcase and choose the one you prefer.

Or even better, you can use both together, there are no compatibility problems.

The advantages is that you have a lot of components ready to use out-of-the-box. The disadvantage is that sometimes you don't have full control about what a component can or can't do (but you can always create your own component extending a library component), and that you have to load some libraries into the client side for them to work (make sense, but it decreases performance)

回答5:

Here are my two cents: Primefaces vs Icefaces vs RichFaces Hope it helps, Francesco

回答6:

I have been using Primefaces since it seems more complete than the others. The thing about it is it is under very active development. The current development release is PrimeFaces 3.0 Milestone 3.

Version 2.2 is more stable, but it is painful to commit to it because you want the features that are appearing in version 3.

There are lots of bugs and undocumented quirks in the development releases. If you can cope with those then I would say go for PF 3. If you can't use PF 2.2 or something else.

Just one example: I have spent three days of my project trying to get one little composite component to work. It still doesn't work and I spent those three days fooling around rather than writing my application. You can post the the user form and maybe they will respond and maybe not. Unless you buy the support there is no way to escalate it, which is fair I guess but not very convenient when you can't afford it.

Another way of putting it is to look at their showcase. If what you want to do is there, it will work. For V3 that is the only documentation you are going to get. If you try to do anything the showcase doesn't specifically show, you are on your own.

回答7:

Primefaces are much more better than any other faces Read more

回答8:

I have used both in the same project. So no need to drop either of them.

回答9:

I've been using RichFaces during the last 3 years and Primefaces for a few months. I prefer Primefaces although it's still a big buggy.

RichFaces feels a bit dated and moving forward very slowly (if at all)

回答10:

Benchmark considering Icefaces, RichFaces and PrimeFaces:

http://www.patternizando.com.br/2011/04/jsf-2-0-comparacao-de-desempenho-icefaces-primefaces-e-richfaces/