Re: tiny java web framework

Lew wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
You can probably implement the same functionality using
any Java web framework.

I like JSF but I do not consider it lightweight.

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
I don't think of JSF as lightweight either...middleweight (to use boxing terminology) might be more accurate. Truth be told, I was referring to the impression I got of the example code - pages and backing Java - that Wicket presented on its site. I saw no real advantages here over how I'd code those examples up using JSF and Facelets.

I was thinking more of the developer experience.

The references on the Wicket site to state management I wish to explore, however. :-) They assert that their approach to this has advantages and I may as well find out what they are.

From time immemorial template and toolkit purveyors have touted their approach as the miracle solution to all your application flow and deployment needs.

Most people are proud of their work. Too proud to be objective. I guess
that is part of being human.

None that I've seen have reduced the complexity compared to others;

If you are trying to say that all frameworks has equal complexity,
for all problems then I do not agree.

I agree that there are no framework that is less complex for all
problems.

But there are most certainly frameworks that are less complex
for a given problem.

Ignoring the fact that using the same framework for everything
has advantages regarding palette of skill sets required, then
one can definitely argue choosing the right framework for
each project.

> they've but found different approaches to
categorizing. organizing and applying state and logic. It just might possibly be that the problem space of application flow and deployment is itself inherently complex, and this will inevitably leak into the tool(s) used to manage this complex area.

Some of those approaches are quite valid. Many Java developers report success and satisfaction with Java Server Faces (JSF) over Java Server Pages (JSP).

I like JSF too.

But I will consider it most suired for medium-large
solutions with high requirements for "finish" (internationalization,
validation, error messages etc.).

JSF is like the Swing component library for the web. Parts of it annoyed me until I understood that. JSF is more like Swing than it is like JSP.

I think JSF is more like Struts and JSP+JSTL+EL than Swing.

Swing does not take a particularly novel outlook on GUIs - it's a fairly straightforward library and comfortably familiar for anyone who's worked on event-driven GUI platforms, which is basically all of them.

I think most GUI developers think Swing is a bit heavy/complex as well.

Arne
.

Relevant Pages