Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #10985

Re: Volunteer for Java Development

Show all headers | View raw

On 11-12-24 12:54 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:15:13 -0800 (PST), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
> 
>> Struts is obsolete.  Use JSF.
> I was told JSF has hugely more overhead.  

What kind of overhead?

1) Size or number of JARs? The days of few and small JARs were over with
many years ago. Besides, assuming reasonable overall size, what does the
exact number of JARs matter anyway? These days a fair few application
servers bundle a suitable JSF implementation; failing that you can
install one server-side; failing that the worst case is that each one of
your web apps that needs JSF grew by a few percent because you had to
include JSF libraries in the WAR. Big deal.

Rather more of an overhead concern would be trying to figure out for any
web app framework *which* JARs to include. This question doesn't get
much simpler than it is for JSF.

2) Application configuration? It doesn't get much easier actually. A
decent IDE will fire out a useful minimal faces-config.xml that you
barely need to touch with JSF 2.0. There's very little configuration
that you need to do prior to starting actual coding of JSF stuff for
your application.

I can myself go a long ways with a nearly empty faces-config.xml.

3) Page complexity?

Let's say that you're using Facelets XHTML pages, which are now included
in JSF. That's absolutely not more complicated than JSPX. If you were
comparing to the use of Spring MVC for your web app framework, with
Velocity as your view technology, JSF Facelets would definitely not be
more complicated. If you were comparing to the use of Struts 2 with,
say, Freemarker as the view technology, JSF Facelets are definitely not
more complicated.

There's no free lunch with any of these view technologies. Provided that
they cleanly separate concerns, which pretty much all of them can do,
the amount of work that a body has to do to define elements in a page,
and their bindings, is comparable.

4) API complexity?

All of the web framework APIs are large, JSF is no exception. But how
much do you need to get a lot done? It seems to me, that once you've
made a decision about component scope, or about a navigation case - all
of which are necessary in *every* web app, including ones that don't use
a framework at all - the translation of those decisions into working
code in JSF is about as easy as it gets. A handful of simple
annotations, and use of JSF 2 implicit and conditional navigation [1],
and you're off to the races.

It seems to me that the same people who make statements about overhead
are the same ones that bandy about terms like "lightweight". In either
case they usually don't even know what they mean.

AHS

1. I fall into the camp of JSF developers that has absolutely no qualms
about hard-coding an implicit navigation rule into a Java action method
in a JSF managed bean. I've seen some commentators state that this
"ties" business objects into the navigation model. They're wrong.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2011-12-22 09:25 -0800
  Re: Volunteer for Java Development Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-22 14:40 -0800
    Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-22 21:59 -0800
      Re: Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2011-12-23 03:46 -0800
        Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-23 09:15 -0800
          Re: Volunteer for Java Development "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com> - 2011-12-24 10:47 +1100
            Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-24 12:33 -0400
            Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-24 10:06 -0800
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-27 03:29 +0000
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-27 13:28 -0400
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-27 18:13 -0500
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 01:07 -0800
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 22:37 -0800
            Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-27 18:09 -0500
          Re: Volunteer for Java Development Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-23 20:54 -0800
            Re: Volunteer for Java Development Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-12-24 00:18 -0800
            Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-24 11:09 -0400
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2011-12-24 07:26 -0800
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-27 00:53 +0000
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-26 22:23 -0400
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-27 18:24 -0500
                Re: Volunteer for Java Development Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-12-27 16:13 -0800
            Re: Volunteer for Java Development Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-12-24 10:10 -0800
              Re: Volunteer for Java Development Sarkar <virtexamit@gmail.com> - 2011-12-25 06:45 -0800
            Re: Volunteer for Java Development Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-27 18:16 -0500

csiph-web