RichFaces Vs PrimeFaces (for performance)

Question

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 a choice between RichFaces and PrimeFaces? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?

Answer 1

Primefaces is currently the only lib component that I know (at the moment) that has a full JSF2 implementation. There are errors and problems, and some components need to be rewritten, but the development is lightning fast, the communication is excellent (I don’t remember a single post on the support forum, to which Kagatay himself did not answer), and he is moving in the right direction (a new simulation system is an example of this IMHO). I think Primefaces will become a mature component of JSF2 by the end of the year.

There are several others, such as Icefaces, that I have been playing with for a short time, but they move slowly, and, as I said, none of them are actually JSF2. One reason for this is that Mojarra, Sun's reference implementation, is quite difficult, and there are some serious bugs that these library component developers are waiting to be fixed.

So, my voice is definitely on Primefaces, we will see how it will look later.

Answer 2

Here is my comparison:

• Richfaces is definitely more mature, and perhaps you can get developers who are experts.
• Primefaces have more components, but Richfaces lacks a combo box. There are no heaps of common components in Richfaces, such as the star rating component, the captcha component, and password strength.
• The GUI is simpler as it is based on the themeroller. It also has more than what is available in Richfaces.
• Charts are tiny and can be easily implemented in code - not too many dependencies.
• Richfaces does not support JSF 2.0 so far (Nov 2010) - Primefaces has a stable version that supports JSF 2.0
• The growth of Richfaces components is largely absent ... No new components have been added over the past few years. The component library remains obsolete.

My recommendation:

• Select Primary if your application is client-side and you need many AJAX components.
• Choose Richfaces (or Primefaces) if this is an application used by your internal clients.

Hari Gangadharan

Answer 3

If you rate PrimeFaces, this page will help:

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

Answer 4

Both are cool. Richfaces is more developed and tested in general, since perforations were released later than RF. Just browse through the component showcase and select the one you prefer.

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

The benefits are that you have many components ready to use out of the box. The disadvantage is that sometimes you do not have full control over what the component can or cannot do (but you can always create your own component that extends the library component), and that you need to load some libraries on the client side for them to work ( make sense, but it reduces performance)

Answer 5

Here are my two cents: Key interfaces vs. Icefaces vs RichFaces Hope it helps, Francesco

Answer 6

I use Primefaces as it seems more complete than others. The fact is that it is under very active development. The current development release is PrimeMaces 3.0 Milestone 3.

Version 2.2 is more stable, but it hurts to do it because you need the features that appear in version 3.

There are many bugs and undocumented quirks in development releases. If you can handle them, I would say you need to go for PF 3. If you cannot use PF 2.2 or something else.

Just one example: I spent three days of my project trying to get one small composite component to work. It still does not work, and I spent these three days cheating, not recording my application. You can publish the user form and may answer, or maybe not. If you do not buy support, there is no way to escalate it, which is fair, I think, but not very convenient when you cannot afford it.

Another way to put it is to look at your shop window. If what you want to do is, it will work. For V3, this is the only documentation you are going to get. If you are trying to do something, the showcase is not specifically shown, you are on your own.

Answer 7

Charts are much better than any other borders. Read more

Answer 8

I used both in one project. Therefore, you do not need to discard any of them.

Answer 9

I have been using RichFaces for the past 3 years, and Primefaces for several months. I prefer Primefaces, although it is still a big buggy.

RichFaces feels a little outdated and progresses very slowly (if at all)

Answer 10

Benchmark reviewing Icefaces, RichFaces and PrimeFaces:

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