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.
Related
I am working on enterprise-level business applications, and now is the time to start thinking about the non-desktop experience.
We have a common component code-base that is using dojo, and are trying to get as much code re-use as possible.
I am really struggling to determine if I should re-use the same code base, or have separate code bases for desktop and mobile.
A big factor in my decision making is the viabliity of dojox/mobile.
It seems pretty cool, and uses the dojo infrastructure which is a huge win, but the fact that it is in dojox scares me a little.
Some questions:
Is dojox/mobile something that can be relied on long term?
Is it a smart idea to try to swap out dijit components for dojox/mobile components depending on what has.js can tell me?
Will dojox/mobile be a part of dojo2.0?
I would add that in Dojo 2.0 the plan is to converge as much as possible the desktop (dijit) and the mobile (dojox/mobile) widgets which should help in your use-case. See: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/2013-June/029041.html
You can rely on dojox/mobile. DojoX will indeed disappear from the Dojo Toolkit in 2.0, but most matured (and probably maintained) modules will be pushed to the dijit/dojo library. I quote the reference guide:
In the future (Dojo 2.0), the DojoX package and namespace will
removed. Sub-Packages and modules will be either integrated into the
Dojo Core, Dijit or separated as their own stand-alone package. For
the 1.X code stream though, in order to ensure backwards
compatibility, all these packages are contained within the dojox
namespace and package.
If we look at the explanation of Mature, we can read the following:
This package or module is considered mature and is being actively
developed and maintained by committers within the Dojo Toolkit. It is
expected that it will persist into the foreseeable future.
Source
And if you look at the link above, you will notice that dojox/mobile is categorized as mature.
Another reason you can rely on it is that IBM (which can be considered a pretty big company and committer to the Dojo toolkit) also relies on dojox/mobile for their mobile product called IBM Worklight. If they rely on it, then there's no reason you couldn't.
I don't think it will be easy to start from the same code base and swap out dijits for dojox/mobile components. Usually mobile app development requires an entire different strategy than web applications. You will probably have to split certain things into multiple views and some dijits may not have a mobile alternative.
You can probably re-use most of your utilities and business logic, but I think you will have to start from scratch again if you want to write your view(s). But I'm not really an advanced mobile developer.
I'm architecting an enterprise web application using python, django. My final decision to make is which javascript library to use. I'm thinking about using Google's closure library or YUI3. Most of the development, I've used jQuery.I can code fast with jQuery but doesn't seem right for enterprise use.
YUI 3 seems pretty good. It includes most widgets I want to use, but Closure library does almost the same. Better offer with Closure library is they have Closure Compiler, but seems like Closure requires to write much more code than YUI 3. Documentation from YUI 3 is pretty good too.
The application will be for both web and mobile devices, so the library should not break in mobile device such as Android or iPhone.
If you were me, what decision would you make?
Disclamer
I mostly draw on comment about jQuery in enterprise environment and since I lack experience in YUI, I can not give any conscious advice for [not] using it over Closure.
But in lack of any other answers I'll share my experience with Closure.
Closure library
As for Closure library, which I have been using for last few projects but am, by no means, expert at it, I can say only good things.
Library provides the core components you need when building any kind of UI. But, unlike jQuery, it does not come with trillions of "ready-to-deploy" plugin-in scripts, or as some would say, with no batteries included.
It's got basic events, controls, xhr, dialogs, form components etc., and by my account the most important thing, namespaces (or at least something looking like them...).
With this you can create your own custom UIs limited only by your imagination and the power of JavaScript (and JS is very powerful language even if it does have its own annoyances).
And with help of Closure compiler, which not only minifies the code but it excludes all unused code, does type checking, gives warnings useful for debuging and so forth, it looks like solid foundation for building large applications ground up by teams of any size.
In my opinion, main reason for using Closure over jQuery in enterprise projects is consistency. Plugins are awsome but they tend to include inconsistency at all levels, either programming practices, visual styles and structure, performance, usage, you name it. Removing these small inconsistencies on large project can waste lot of time.
So in conclusion, if you have large project needing custom UI and a lot of flexibility Closure is the Right tool for the job. And with "namespaces" it even feels all Pythonish.
P.S. We also use Django on server side.
You have touched on most of the important aspects here, the type checking, minification, namespaces, but I would like to add a few more. Alongside is the templating sollution they offer, which is not only super fast and has full internationalisation support, this mixes in and compresses with the library. It also compiles down to java code so you can render on both the server and the client from the same template.
Then there is the component architecture which has a complete livecycle, seperates renderers from components, (if you are familiar with swing or flex you will get the idea), it has two models, one is client side rendering and the other is decoration which plays beautifully alongside the server side rendering.
The testing sollutions are well defined and now the
We have thousands upon thousands of lines of javascript and without closure it would have been an unmaintainable mess IMO.
I'd go with YUI 3. Especially if the only reason you're considering Google's Closure is the compiler. As this works well in YUI 3, with much better compression than the YUI compresser. I'm sure it doesn't do as good a job as it could with Closure code, but that's pretty hard to test.
The modular framework in YUI 3 is awesome, and there is enough sugar to give you a tooth ache without being too heavy. Yahoo use it for all their sites, and they have a strong emphasis on performance (so it can't be all bad).
In the tests I made, Google Advanced Compress is the better, and after the the Yahoo! YUI Compressor. You can make the tests here:
http://jsperf.com/closure-vs-yui
I am in a new project that is looking to include an end to end testing framework.
We want something flexible, I've used Fitnesse before and I think we need something similar to it.
We are also using Hudson CI and are looking for something that would integrate easily with it.
Is there a clear winner?
UPDATED: The system has many components, some of them are web services running on tomcat, there are a couple of NoSQL databases too, but no UI testing is required for the moment.
Please add a comment if further clarification on the project details is needed.
The robot framework is a good keyword driven testing framework that we use for end to end integration testing.
http://code.google.com/p/robotframework/
There is a plugin for jenkins (a fork of hudson) that is very useful. It reportedly works with hudson as well.
Great to read you have decided start using Robot Framework. Its Hudson plugin already has recently got much better (trend charts, available from Hudson directly, ...) and moved to new place:
http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Robot+Framework+Plugin
Can you be more specific, when you say, you want to have an end-to-end testing framework? What kind of application are you developing (standalone, web based, web service, ...)? What language do you program in?
I would also look for previous knowledge in your team or around your team (e.g. other teams). It might be sufficient, to use TestNG or JUnit (I have seen an old paper on UI testing using JUnit). Almost all test frameworks should be fine for Hudson, as long as they can be started in a headless/scripted mode and if they provide the results in a format that Hudson understands (in the worst case HTML is sufficent, though Hudson will only be able to display the pages). So if you have IBM Monitoring tools available, you might want to look at Rational Functional Tester or Rational Performance Tester.
FitNesse is a good tool for functional testing. The business contacts can create the test cases by themselfs (developers have to provide some connector code), which will create more visibility and removes some work from the test engineers. Drawback is, that you can't really do UI testing. If you need a open source plattform for UI, have a look at seam. Even though I like the OSS philosophi, you might need longer ramp up time (higher costs) and possibly more maintainace time for OSS (not true for all OSS). In any case, check how easy it is to get support for your framework. You might even consider paid support for your framework (regardless if open or closed source). Also don't forget, even though you can fix OSS source yourself, you might not have the expertise or time for fixing bugs or adding features.
So give us more info and we can give you better advices.
My experience with jBehave is very good. Recommend.
It's based on BDD - Behavior Driven Development.
I'm looking for a code coverage tool that I can use with a BlackBerry application. I'm using J2ME-Unit for Unit Testing and I want to see how much of my code is being covered by my tests.
I've tried using Cobertura for J2ME but after days of wrestling with it I failed to get any results from it. (I believe that the instrumentation is un-done by the RAPC compilation). And despite this message, the project seems to be dead.
I've looked at JInjector but the project seems very incomplete. There is little (if any) documentation and although it claims to be able to work with BlackBerry projects, I haven't seen any places where it has been used for that purpose. I've played with the project quite a bit but to no avail.
I've also tried the "Coverage" view in the BlackBerry JDE, even though I use Eclipse for development. The view stays permanently blank, regardless of clicking "Refresh" and running the application from the JDE.
I've looked at most of the tools on this SO thread, but they won't work with J2ME/BlackBerry projects.
Has anyone had any success with any code coverage tools on the BlackBerry? If so, what tools have you used? How have you used them?
If anyone has managed to get JInjector or Cobertura for J2ME to work with a BlackBerry project, what did you have to do to get it working?
I can't speak for Coberatura or JInjector, because I don't know how they collect test coverage probe data.
What is
critical is how this data is captured (does it need Java runtime support only available in standard Java VMs?) and how it is exported to the test coverage display/report generation tools.
Our SD Java Test Coverage tool instruments your source code; at runtime this produces an array of native Java booleans representing the coverage data, without need for any special VM support. Normally, this array is exported directly to a file, used by the test coverage display mechanism, by a TCVDump method provided with the test coverage tool, as your application exits.
Java (and other programming langauges used) in embedded systems often requires custom methods to extract the test coverage data. You might need to code a special dump procedure (in Java) to write out that boolean array to an accessible place. Our experience with building such custom dump procedures is that they are generally pretty simple (a few dozen lines); the real trick is deciding how/where to put the data, so that it can be easily moved to the target file. Mostly this is just a peculiar pair of copies, the first of which copies the boolean array to some staging location, and the second which writes the staged data into the destination file. (The standard TCVdump method is provided in source form to enable this kind of customization).
While I haven't specifically looked at BlackBerry, if you can write the data anywhere, you can pretty much be assured you can achieve this. We've had success with other embedded hand-set systems, such as Symbian, doing this.
If you want a complete overview of how to generally instrument code for test coverage following this strategy, see this paper: Branch Coverage for Arbitrary Languages Made Easy
I was actively involved with JInjector while working at Google. We were able to use it to successfully obtain code coverage for Blackberry applications. The application lifecycle for Balckberry apps is less predictable than J2ME and we found we had to tweak the application code to ensure the coverage data was gathered. I didn't personally work on the blackberry apps, several other engineers did. I'd hoped we'd create an example blackberry application and make it available on the jinjector site, but events and life got in the way.
If you would be willing to provide a sample blackberry apps with some unit tests, I'd be willing to spend a few hours trying to help you get the code coverage working. I'm not actively working with either J2ME or Blackberry (I'm currently working on Android apps when I have time to experiment with mobile) so I'm quite rusty. I have a day job that doesn't involve much mobile test automation, however I continue to work on ways to improve the test automation for mobile apps e.g. http://code.google.com/p/mwta/downloads/list for Android Test Automation.
I'm julianharty at gmail.com
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