StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Application & Data
  3. Frameworks
  4. Javascript Mvc Frameworks
  5. CDI vs JSF

CDI vs JSF

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

JSF
JSF
Stacks138
Followers223
Votes4
CDI
CDI
Stacks30
Followers38
Votes0

CDI vs JSF: What are the differences?

  1. Scope: CDI (Contexts and Dependency Injection) focuses on managing bean instances within the application lifecycle, providing a dynamic mechanism for creating, storing, and destroying beans. On the other hand, JSF (JavaServer Faces) is a web application framework that specifically deals with the user interface and event handling aspects of web applications. CDI primarily manages beans while JSF focuses on user interaction.

  2. Component: CDI serves as a dependency injection mechanism where components can be injected into various parts of an application. It promotes loose coupling between components, making the application more modular and easier to maintain. In contrast, JSF components are primarily UI elements like buttons, text fields, and panels, used to construct web pages' visual interface. CDI is more about managing beans, while JSF deals with the user interface components.

  3. Annotation: CDI uses annotations such as @Inject, @Named, and @Qualifier to declare and inject managed beans, while JSF utilizes annotations like @ManagedBean and @ViewScoped to define managed beans with specific scopes within the JSF framework. The annotations used in CDI and JSF differ based on their specific functionalities and contexts within the application.

  4. Integration: CDI acts as a basis for dependency injection in Java EE, integrating with various Java EE technologies like EJBs (Enterprise JavaBeans) and JPA (Java Persistence API). JSF, on the other hand, integrates seamlessly with other Java EE components to handle the presentation layer of web applications, often working in conjunction with CDI for managing bean instances efficiently.

  5. Extensibility: CDI offers a high degree of extensibility through custom scopes, context management, and decorators, allowing developers to tailor the bean lifecycle and behavior to specific requirements. JSF provides extensibility through custom component development, converter, validator, and listener implementations, enabling developers to enhance the framework's capabilities for building complex UI components and handling user interactions effectively.

  6. Lifecycle: The lifecycle management in CDI revolves around bean creation, injection, and destruction, primarily controlled by the CDI container. In contrast, the JSF lifecycle is centered around user interactions, including request processing, component tree construction, and rendering phases, providing a structured approach to handling user input and generating dynamic web content.

In Summary, CDI and JSF differ in their scope of functionality, component management, annotation usage, integration with other technologies, extensibility options, and lifecycle management within the context of Java EE applications.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Detailed Comparison

JSF
JSF
CDI
CDI

It is used for building component-based user interfaces for web applications and was formalized as a standard through the Java Community

It is a standard dependency injection framework included in Java EE 6 and higher. It allows us to manage the lifecycle of stateful components via domain-specific lifecycle contexts and inject components (services) into client objects in a type-safe way.

-
Part of the Java EE 6 platform;Defines a powerful set of complementary services
Statistics
Stacks
138
Stacks
30
Followers
223
Followers
38
Votes
4
Votes
0
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 2
    Rich and comprehensive Request Life-cycle
  • 1
    Server Side component
  • 1
    Very Mature UI framework
No community feedback yet
Integrations
Java
Java
Java EE
Java EE
Java
Java
Java EE
Java EE

What are some alternatives to JSF, CDI?

AngularJS

AngularJS

AngularJS lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It lets you use good old HTML (or HAML, Jade and friends!) as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly. It automatically synchronizes data from your UI (view) with your JavaScript objects (model) through 2-way data binding.

Vue.js

Vue.js

It is a library for building interactive web interfaces. It provides data-reactive components with a simple and flexible API.

Ember.js

Ember.js

A JavaScript framework that does all of the heavy lifting that you'd normally have to do by hand. There are tasks that are common to every web app; It does those things for you, so you can focus on building killer features and UI.

Backbone.js

Backbone.js

Backbone supplies structure to JavaScript-heavy applications by providing models key-value binding and custom events, collections with a rich API of enumerable functions, views with declarative event handling, and connects it all to your existing application over a RESTful JSON interface.

Angular

Angular

It is a TypeScript-based open-source web application framework. It is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications.

Aurelia

Aurelia

Aurelia is a next generation JavaScript client framework that leverages simple conventions to empower your creativity.

Mithril

Mithril

Mithril is around 12kb gzipped thanks to its small, focused, API. It provides a templating engine with a virtual DOM diff implementation for performant rendering, utilities for high-level modelling via functional composition, as well as support for routing and componentization.

Quarkus

Quarkus

It tailors your application for GraalVM and HotSpot. Amazingly fast boot time, incredibly low RSS memory (not just heap size!) offering near instant scale up and high density memory utilization in container orchestration platforms like Kubernetes. We use a technique we call compile time boot.

Marionette

Marionette

It is a JavaScript library with a RESTful JSON interface and is based on the Model–view–presenter application design paradigm. Backbone is known for being lightweight, as its only hard dependency is on one JavaScript library, Underscore.js, plus jQuery for use of the full library.

Ampersand.js

Ampersand.js

We <3 Backbone.js at &yet. It’s brilliantly simple and solves many common problems in developing clientside applications. But we missed the focused simplicity of tiny modules in node-land. We wanted something similar in style and philosophy, but that fully embraced tiny modules, npm, and browserify. Ampersand.js is a well-defined approach to combining (get it?) a series of intentionally tiny modules.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase