I've been recommended the Click framework from Apache. But I can't find any forums talking about benchmark, reviews, advantages, disavantages, usefulness, ease of implementation, etc.
I've been asked to use it to develop a web site, but I'm completly in the dark about its strengths and weaknesses.
And its damn name isn't helping !! Click ? Hey Apache ! Call your next framework "the" just for fun. I dare you.
So can anyone comment on his experience with Click ?
What I personally like about the Click framework is that it is fairly close to HTML/HTTP and the Servlet API. There is no huge abstraction to get familiar with. You have a Page class, a Form class, ... If you need to preserve state across invocations you put it in the session or you pass it through the URL... This makes it easy to start using it. It is also straightforward to control the HTML pages being generated. It may sound like it is a very basic framework but the simplicity is actually one of it greatest strengths.
Other frameworks (e.g. Seam) are more suitedr to create a very large web application with lots of reusable components and complicated pageflows but the learning curve is much steeper. So for me Click works well for small to medium sized websites.
It's an apache incubator project but that does not mean the project is not stable, rather it reflects that it is in transition to the Apache project model.
Click is Apache's version of a component based web framework equivalent to JSF (other component base Java Frameworks are Tapestry and Wicket)
Click is rated at Ohloh
There is an official blog and some Wikipedia references: Framework Comparision and info page
Related
I've been reading about Durandal and Aurelia every time I read something new on Javascript. I hear developers asking to upgrade from Durandal to Aurelia, or similar, on so many blogs. Although I do have an idea, I am confused about what the two really are and how they are related, or if at all they even are related.
Here's how I see it. Durandal is a lightweight SPA framework that allows you to leverage the best of other JS libraries and utilities to build an app. So it's not really a whole package in itself (unlike Angular), but can use different external JS libs - such as Knockout for binding, jQuery for DOM, Sammy for routing, etc.
Aurelia, on the other hand, is where the confusion comes in. Is it also an SPA framework? Or is it limited to being a client-side (front end) framework only? To add to my confusion there is a Durandal blog that talks only about Aurelia. I know from the internet that Rob Eisenberg worked on Durandal before he started working on Aurelia. So is Aurelia an upgrade of Durandal, or something completely unrelated?
I still have some questions but I'm guessing the structure of my question so far will be only asking for opinionated answers. So before this question is closed, any description, links and references in regard will be amazing. I'll be sure to update and add useful links here too.
According to Rob Eisenberg:
"Aurelia is just a vNext of Durandal. On occasion we've even called it Durandal Aurelia. Much like XBox 360 vs. XBox One. The web is significantly evolving, so we're evolving Durandal into Aurelia to match."
Aurelia, on the other hand, is where the confusion comes in. Is it
also an SPA framework? Or is it limited to being a client-side (front
end) framework only?
Yes, it is a SPA framework. Actually, it is a framework for building Javascript clients, it means you can develop apps for Browser, Desktop and Mobile. Take a look at this video https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Seth-on-the-Road/DevIntersection-2015/Rob-Eisenberg-on-Aurelia
Different from Durandal, Aurelia comes with the full package, everything you need is there. However, it is perfectly pluggable and extensible, and you can combine any other technologies if necessary.
Here is description provided by the official site www.aurelia.io
What is Aurelia?
Well, it's actually simple. Aurelia is just JavaScript. However, it's not yesterday's JavaScript, but the JavaScript of tomorrow. By using modern tooling we've been able to write Aurelia from the ground up in ECMAScript 2016. This means we have native modules, classes, decorators and more at our disposal...and you have them too.
Not only is Aurelia written in modern and future JavaScript, but it also takes a modern approach to architecture. In the past, frameworks have been monolithic beasts. Not Aurelia though. It's built as a series of collaborating libraries. Taken together, they form a powerful and robust framework for building Single Page Apps (SPAs). However, Aurelia's libraries can often be used individually, in traditional web sites or even on the server-side through technologies like NodeJS."
Some of the greatest advantages of Aurelia (in my opinion) are:
Powerful Data-binding. Different from others frameworks like Angular, Aurelia uses new features of Javascript. So, all data-binding stuffs are usually faster in Aurelia (source http://blog.durandal.io/2015/12/04/aurelia-repaint-performance-rules/)
Simple Conventions and Simple Syntax. It is really easy to develop in Aurelia. There are a lot of features ready to use. If you want to overwrite some convention, usually 1 line of code is enough. (see http://aurelia.io/docs.html#/aurelia/framework/1.0.0-beta.1.0.3/doc/article/getting-started)
Hope it helps!
What are the differences between the three Smalltalk web application frameworks?
Some starting points:
What is the sweet spot for each framework? in Which case would you use one or the other?
What are their weaknesses?
Which one has the cleanest URLs?
How do they handle Ajax?
Do they have some preference in their use of persistence?
I'm just trying to decide which framework is appropriate for each kind of application.
I can only answer for Seaside:
Target: Seaside targets complex web applications with focus on reusability and development productivity. There is automatic session state management and back-button support. The two free online books Dynamic Web Development with Seaside and Seaside Tutorial provide documentation.
Weakness: For RESTful URLs you have to do some extra work.
Clean URLs: For RESTful URLs you have to do some extra work, but it can be worth it (e.g. Pier).
AJAX: There are plenty of AJAX libraries integrated in Seaside (jQuery, jQueryUI, Prototype, script.aculo.us, ...). The integrations give you full access to these libraries from within Smalltalk. New libraries can be easily integrated, e.g. JQueryWidgetBox.
Persistency: Seaside is a web application framework, not a persistency framework. You can use whatever persistency solution fits you the best, e.g. GemStone, GOODS, GLORP, ...
Also see these other questions/discussions on StackOverflow:
What is the difference between Seaside programmming and other web programming
Is Seaside still a valid option?
I can say something on the Iliad side:
Sweet spot(s): It handles AJAX painlessly. For me, that was the turning point that made me switch to Iliad. Also, it's so small and non-bloated that you can read the whole code in a day and have a grasp on how it works.
Weaknesses: The community is also very small. This results in a lack of documentation, additional modules or pre-made widgets. OTOH, small communities tend to be willing to help each other more eagerly, so pretty much all your doubts can be solved by asking at the mailing list.
URLs: Well, since all calls in Iliad are AJAX by default, the URL stays clean the whole time.
Ajax: Yep. For free and by default. You just #markDirty a widget and it'll update automatically. Dependencies are as easy to define as sending #addDependantWidget: to a widget, so that when the first is marked dirty, both will be updated. Also, if the client doesn't have a javascript capable browser, all calls will fall back to regular HTTP requests automatically.
Persistence: No preference. Since the model is separated from the framework (I think this applies for the three frameworks) you can still follow the same guidelines you would for Aida or Seaside.
And for Aida/Web:
Sweet spots: Realtime web support out of the box, for both content websites and complex web apps, HTML5 and mobile support, web server included so it works immediately after installation, you can serve many virtual websites from the same image.
Weaknesses: lack of documentation, small community
URLs: clean REST-like URLs all the time, because Aida follows from the start the moto: every domain object can have its URL (also by Alan Kay) and domain object can even choose its URL by itself.
Ajax: Seamlessly integrated, you don't see it anymore, all is just there. To refresh some element on webpage you simply call e update. No need to know any jQuery or some other JavaScript. Same goes for realtime web apps as well. WebSocket protocol is default communication channel on supported browsers to exchange JSON messages between browser and Aida based server.
Persistence: Image based persistence with automatic snapshot every hour is turned on by default. Gemstone/GLASS support provided for the next step. Relational/other DB is a duty of domain level, if needed.
For more:
Comparison of Smalltalk web frameworks from Aida centric
perspective
ToDo example in Aida/Web shows the newest realtime web/HTML5
features, as part of Comparison by example initiative
For some persistency solutions for Seaside, there is a page. Most of the solutions there are independent of Seaside.
I see a lot of new websites lately which create automated content, most notable SiteGuruji and 7zoom:
http://www.siteguruji.com/site/youtube.com
Is there an application framework or text analysis framework available to create such sites? SiteGuruji is doing full SEO analysis of the sites as well. Is there an SEO analysis library available? How do I do such an analysis?
Sorry for the noobish question, but i am new to programming and thus I am not sure which direction to start in.
By SEO did you mean this section of the page?
http://www.siteguruji.com/site/youtube.com#seo_status ?
I don't think any frameworks are available for SEO... however you can check out NLTK for text analysis and natural language processing:
http://www.nltk.org/book
You basically need to write your own classes to scrape content from the site and third party sites and analyse it. I have not found something ready for this. Bits fom here and there, you can use.
Personally, I have created everything from scratch using zend framework as basis.
I am evaluating Rich Internet application solutions to use in next project. I have heard of following solutions -
Adobe Flex
extJS
Jboss Richfaces
IceFaces
Oracle ADF
JavaFX
Silverlight
GWT
I want to know if there are more solutions available.
I would appreciate if you can provide any valuable feedback on the above solutions.
IT Mill Toolkit is a "server-driven" framework built on top of GWT.
Comment: coming from a heavy PHP and Java-hostile background, I found Toolkit to be very pleasing to use pretty quickly. Being able to write nothing but (the strongly typed, nicely OO-oriented) Java is nice, considering the fact that what you change in the code is pretty instantially reflected on what you see in the browser.
It's a bit tricky to set up, but IT Mill has an Eclipse plugin that supposedly helps with that. The only thing is that the plugin itself is a tad unintuitive to use :)
0.02€
Reply to comment: The biggest difference between GWT and IMT is that GWT operates entirely inside the browser (a hostile/exploitable environment with e.g. FireBug), while IMT uses GWT only to render the server-side state. So, while you can edit any values you want in the browser with both GWT and IMT, GWT will happily accept the user-edited variable values, IMT keeps track on the values server-side, and doesn't allow any discrepancies between the client and server.
Another big difference is that GWT widgets need to be compiled every time you do any changes to them with the relatively time consuming GWT cross-compiler (compiles Java to JavaScript). IMT, on the other hand, needs only to be redeployed to the servlet container, and the changes are there, because the GWT widgets inside IMT don't need to be recompiled. With Tomcat, it's virtually instantaneous (i.e. as soon as Tomcat notices that Eclipse has recompiled the classes on the fly).
#the_drow: Not being familiar with Dijit, here's an answer: Dojo is javascript only, meaning it's client side only. Vaadin (née IT Mill Toolkit) lives partly in the server side too (calls itself "server driven"), so you can't hack the client side just by changing JavaScript variable values. There's a chart that compares Vaadin with other comparable products. Dojo isn't included, but JQuery is, which is vaguely similar to Dojo
i had an experience with Spring Webflow + Rich Faces with mixed results - time to get the results on screen is really short, but it's pain to fine tune the presentation part.
ie if you are building some tech oriented/backend
/standard GUIs - it's ok, if you are going to build a frontend used by millions web2.0-ers you end up messing with presentation part css/javascript big time.
After evaluating and reading various RIA solutions, I have finally selected GWT and GWT-Ext. I see these benefits for me and my team -
We are used to Eclipse so this is an advantage.
Ability to use Java Debugger in Eclipse is extremely helpful.
GWT Hosted mode in eclipse, so no compile and deploy required on every change.
Big developer community
Lots of ready to use components
Prior Java knowledge helpful
Similar to swing and the team have worked on Swing in earlier project.
Look and feel is also good
Maven support is also available.
Can write Junit test cases.
No other language knowledge required apart from Java.
Easy RPC configuration based on annotations.
I am planning to design an application XUL & XPCOM for proprietary system. So i have decided to use C/C++ but how can I start the development as a beginner in this field
I cannot find a good guide to start around. It will be good if you can give some links
and books. I also would like to know how to prevent the user from modifying the code specially in the view part because the logic can be done in XPCOM.
XUL explorer is a tool that lets you drag and drop XUL. It's good for mocking up an interface or starting to learn about the various elements you can use.
xulrunner is Mozilla's binary that allows you to run XUL/XPCOM/javascript applications.
The Mozilla Developer Center is your friend.
If you use IRC, check out #xulrunner on irc.mozilla.org . They are fairly tolerant of some questions from beginners.
I don't think there's going to be away around allowing the user to see (or potentially modify) the actually XUL interface. There are some paths for trying to secure JavaScript in some way (some surface level, like obscuring, minifying, but then some possible secure loading methods). XPCOM can be written in C++ or JavaScript, to name a few, if you put more of your code in XPCOM it should be more secure, I think.
A fun start for seeing what you can do in XUL is to check out the XUL Periodic Table.
Preventing the user from modifying your code is futile, as they will always be able to do this.
You could of course ship a modified build of xulrunner (containing some required XPCOM as well) which only loads jars signed by some key, but they could trivially hack around that by modifying the binary or the image in memory.
So don't bother trying to stop people modifying your code - you can't - unless you're on a trusted platform such as a games console - and even then it's not guaranteed.
This helped me to create my first XPCOM.