It looks like the performance of Spring (Boot) is relatively low compare to other frameworks at "Web Framework Benchmarks" website Web Framework Benchmarks. I looked at the source code (JSON serialization) and could not find anything odd. So I am wondering whether the low performance is caused by Tomcat or by the framework itself?
Slow? It seems to be more or less in the middle of the ranks. Which doesn't seem too bad considering that it is actually a framework. The definition of framework for that set of benchmarks is very liberal, given that it includes benchmarks for a pretty raw Undertow application and another for a raw Servlet.
But given that the Spring benchmark itself is running on Undertow, it wouldn't be Tomcat causing the issue. :)
Looking at the source for the various benchmarks, they are really not comparing like for like. For example, the Spring benchmark project builds a reasonably standard multi-tiered application with ORM entities mapped with JPA and Hibernate, re-usable repository classes, etc.
On the other hand the Wicket application just has a controller with a JDBC call. It even uses a hand-cranked template for generating JSON. You could write a Spring application that way if you wanted to, but nobody would be impressed.
The Undertow benchmark again does little more than query a database with JDBC and spit out a response. It's not surprising that it would be faster than itself with a full stack framework running on it.
Of course, they hopefully get you to think about your priorities in writing an application. Do you want a full stack framework, which lets you write less code, provides various security features, helps you to achieve code re-use, and make your application more testable and maintainable? Or are you willing to sacrifice all that for speed?
Related
Is it sensible to use Spring in the server side of an in memory data grid based application?
My gut feeling tells me that it is nonsense in a low latency high performance system. A colleague of mine is insisting on including Spring in it. What are the pros and cons of such inclusion?
My position is that Spring is OK to be used in the client but it is too heavy for the server, it brings too many dependancies and is one more leaky abstraction to think of.
Data Grid systems are memory and I/O intensive in general. Using Spring does not affect that (you may argue that Spring creates a lot of beans but with proper Garbage Collection tuning this is not a problem).
On the other hand using Spring (or any other DI) helps you structure and test your code.
So if you are using implementing some sort of server based on Data Grid systems, pay attention to properly adjusting GC, sockets in your OS (memory buffers and socket memories). Those will give you much more benefits than cutting down DI.
First, I'm surprised by the "leaky abstraction" comment. I've never heard anyone criticize Spring for this. In fact, it's just the opposite. Spring removes the implementation details of infrastructure such as data grids from your application code and provides a consistent and familiar programming model, allowing you to focus on business logic. Spring does a lot to enhance configuration and access to data grids, especially Gemfire, and generally does not create any runtime overhead per se. During initialization of a Spring application, Spring uses tools like reflection and AOP internally which may increase the start up time of an application, but this has no impact on runtime performance. Spring has been proven in many high-throughput, low-latency production applications. In extreme cases, things like network latency and serialization, concerns external to Spring, are normally the biggest factors affecting performance.
"Spring brings in too many dependencies" is a common complaint, but is a fallacy. I would say Spring brings in the exact right amount of dependencies for what it needs to do. Additionally, Spring Boot starters and the platform BOM do a lot to simplify dependency management so you don't need to worry about version incompatibilities or explicitly declaring common dependencies. I'll have to side with your colleague on this one.
I m a newbie & i m good at Struts framework. Today i tried a tutorial for Spring MVC Framework.
The example url that i tried following is as below:
http://static.springsource.org/docs/Spring-MVC-step-by-step/part6.html
I think they have made this tutorial much more complex especially near its end. I saw some errors mainly typos in part 5, part 6 of tutorial. I found Spring framework as not properly organized and how would we know what classes to extend especially when their names are so weird (pardon my language) e.g. AbstractTransactionalDataSourceSpringContextTests.
Overall i found that Spring is making things much more complex than it should be. I'm surprised why there is such a hype about Springs being very easy to learn.
any suggestion how to learn spring easily ? how to judge what to extend ? is there a quick reference or something?
The tutorial you have referred to covers all the layers of the application - data access, business logic and web. For someone who is looking to only get a feel of Spring MVC, which addresses concerns specific to the web layer of the application, this could be more information than required. Probably that is why you got the feeling that the tutorial is complex.
To answer your questions, Spring is easy to learn because the whole framework is designed to work with POJOs, instead of relying on special interfaces, abstract classes or such. Developers can write software as normal Java applications - interfaces, classes and enums and use Spring to wire the components up, without having to go out of the way to achieve the wiring. The tutorial you have referred to tries to explain things in a little bit more detail than experienced programmers would typically do in a real application, probably because the authors wanted the readers to get enough insight into how Spring works so that concepts are understood well.
In most applications (regardless of their size or nature), there is typically no need to extend Spring classes or to implement specialised classes. The Spring community is quite large and an even larger ecosystem of readily available components exists that integrate with Spring. It is therefore very rare that one has to implement a Spring component to achieve something. For example, let us take the example of the data access layer. Different teams like using different approaches to accessing databases. Some like raw JDBC, others like third-party ORMs like iBatis or Hibernate while some others like JPA. Spring distributions contain classes to support all these approaches. Similarly, lets say someone was looking to incorporate declarative transaction management in their application. Again, transaction management can be done in many different ways and a large number of transaction management products are available for people to use. Spring integration is available for most of these products, allowing teams to simply choose which product they want to use and configure it in their Spring application.
Recent Spring releases have mostly done away with extensive XML based configuration files, which being external to the Java code did make Spring application a bit cumbersome to understand. Many things can be done nowadays with annotations. For example,
#Controller
public class AuthenticationController
{
...
}
Indicates that AuthenticationController is a web MVC controller class. There are even ways to avoid using the Controller annotation and follow a convention-over-configuration approach to simplify coding even further.
A good and simple tutorial to Spring MVC is available at http://www.vaannila.com/spring/spring-mvc-tutorial-1.html. This tutorial uses XML based configuration for Spring beans instead of annotations but the concepts remain the same.
I have seen tutorial you follow , Its seems you have follow wrong one first , you first tried to simple one, Instead of tutorials you should go for book first
I recommend you two books to understand the power of Spring
spring in action and spring recipes.
For practical you can use STS a special ide for spring project development.Its have some predefined template you dont't need to write whole configuration yourself.
In starting just see simple tutorials like Spring mvc hello world , form controller than go for big ones
Spring is very cool , All the best.
When people mention that Spring is a lightweight containter compared to other frameworks, do they mean? That it occupies less memory in the system or it does not have the operations like start stop that we have for EJB containers and it doesn't use a special container?
What makes Spring a lightweight container?
Whether it is "lightweight" or "heavyweight", it is all about comparison. We consider Spring to be lightweight when we are comparing to normal J2EE container. It is lightweight in the sense of extra memory footprint for the facilities provided (e.g. Transaction Control, Life Cycle, Component dependency management)
However, there are sometimes other criteria to compare for the "weight" of a container, e.g. intrusiveness in design and implementation; facilities provided etc.
Ironically, Spring is sometimes treated as heavy weight container when compared to other POJO-based container, like Guice and Plexus.
Spring calls itself 'lightweight' because you don't need all of Spring to use part of it. For example, you can use Spring JDBC without Spring MVC.
Spring provides various modules for different purposes; you can just inject dependencies according to your required module. That is, you don't need to download or inject all dependencies or all JARs to use a particular module.
If you want to run a Java EE application, you can't just create a small application that will run on its own. You will need a Java EE application server to run your application, such as Glassfish, WebLogic or WebSphere. Most application servers are big and complex pieces of software, that are not trivial to install or configure.
You don't need such a thing with Spring. You can use Spring dependency injection, for example, in any small, standalone program.
I think "lightweight" is mostly a buzz-word. It's meaning is highly subjective and based on context. It can mean "low memory footprint", it can be low execution overhead, low start-up overhead. People also use it to differentiate between some perceived level of complexity and/or learning-curve. In any case, it's assuredly relative as there is no defined point on any scale where "light" becomes "heavy" in terms of "weight".
I personally think it's a dangerous word since it has no real, quantifiable meaning. It's something people throw into architecture proposals to beef up the "pro" section of a certain framework they want to use anyway. If you see or hear it being used in any such situation, it's a perfect opportunity to ask "what does that mean?". If you get an angry or frustrated response (combined with rolling of eyes and shaking of head), it means that the person has decided on a certain architecture, but hasn't managed to formulate coherent or objective reasons for it.
EDIT: not sure I would categorize spring as a "container" either, but that's a similar apples and oranges discussion. I'd call it a framework.
Spring is light weight becouse other J2ee container especially EJB2.1 require more configuration, It can have lot of do nothing code to ,it have complex directory structure for packing applications, overall it took extra memory;on other hand spring minimizes all this things.so it light weight.
I think one can also say that spring is light weight because it uses POJO(Plain old java object) .POJO class does not require to implement,extends technologies specific API(Interfaces,Classes) or it is not bounded to any technology specific API
I know the title may seem like apples & oranges, but hear me out... :)
I'm building the architecture of an MVC app and considering what to use for the core of the controller / services. This stack will also serve as a RESTful API which will be equally as important as the UI.
I'm narrowing down my stack to be built with either Grails or JAX-RS (at this point I've ruled out other options and am not super interested in expanding this list). Either way I'll be using Groovy, and my model and views will be virtually unaffected by this choice, so that further levels some of the differences between the two. Here are the pros/cons that I've been pondering and was wondering if anyone had any other inputs or caveat experiences.
Grails
I am not going to use a ton of the built-in Grails features (GSP/SiteMesh, Hibernate, nearly all plugins), so I'm concerned that Grails might be a bit heavy for my purposes
I'm concerned that I won't have enough control over my ability to handle the REST API since it is very view-centric
I've seen inconsistencies in the quality of plugins to the point where I'm not sure I consider them much of a 'pro'
I love the convention-over-configuration & edit-and-refresh, to the point where I'd probably want to wire up something similar if I go with JAX-RS
I like the grails command line for everything it streamlines, but I'm concerned that it might get in my way since I'm not using as much of the stack
I like the scaffolding but since I'm not using Hibernate or GSP/SiteMesh it might not mesh well
JAX-RS
JAX-RS is made for REST. This will make my RESTful API really a snap to implement as I have complete control
Groovy is an important part of what makes Grails shine, so I'll benefit from that even in JAX-RS
I love how JAX-RS doesn't automatically pull in a bunch of other things so I can have more control of what components are in/out
unfortunately since it doesn't pull in everything else anything that I end up needing will require more work, whereas Grails might have a plugin
the grails command line and scaffolding will be missed; perhaps Maven can fill some gaps
It seems like the capabilities of each for creating actions and routing are pretty similar (although the implementation styles are different). In fact there are other SO questions wish touch upon this so I'm not too concerned.
I wrote a small REST service prototype in several frameworks last year (namely Grails, Play!, Spring MVC, Jersey, Restlet). My feeling about Grails in this concern was that although Grails supports REST style architecture, it isn't really made for it. I don't want to get religious here, so if you only want to map resources to URLs and HTTP verbs your fine, but if you want to dig deeper into REST with tight control over return codes, location headers, etc. you might still be able to do it with Grails, but it is probably better supported in a pure REST framework.
Grails also comes with a lot of dependencies, which might not be a problem if you're starting on a green field, but can cause problems when you have to integrate it with existing legacy components or frameworks.
From the two used REST frameworks, I liked Jersey more, as it just worked in my case and the documentation was good (although a bit focused on Maven and Netbeans).
Yeah, it does seem heavy to build on a MVC framework when you're not going to use the model or the view. While the autowiring and simplified configuration is super nice, Grails would still be providing a lot of extra stuff that you don't need.
I'd personally take the lighter approach and leave Grails out, using any standalone libraries or writing custom code which provide the features that you do want. There's a number of container projects listed on the Groovy site, perhaps Spring or one of the alternatives would add some value to your architecture.
I'm looking to make a website that will probably get some heavy, repetitive traffic. Is grails up to the task?
I agree with lael, also because it's built on java technologies there are a lot of proven clustering and 'enterprisey' tools available which allow you to easily scale across multiple application services.
The cloud tools around Grails are also becoming very good and make deploying to a cloud like EC2 very easy. I've recently been using Cloud Foundry and found it very good.
As the first poster points out however, you can write a badly performing application in any framework/language. One thing I'd recommend is getting a good understanding of Hibernate which is the underlying persistence library. If you understand how that works, it should help you avoid making any silly mistakes at the DB level. On this side of things, a tool like p6spy is great for checking what the database is up to during normal use. It should help you spot any repetitive queries.
The scalability of your web application won't really depend on what language/framework you choose to use, but rather how your application is built. You can build a scalable web application in Grails, just as you can build an incredibly slow application in C++. If Grails is the framework you would like to use, then use it; you can always rewrite the slow parts in Java or another fast language, if need be. (After all, that's what Twitter did with Scala.)
Disclaimer: I've never actually used Grails.
Grails is essentially a thin layer on top of the Spring Framework, which many consider to be a very scalable framework in the enterprise world. Spring + Hibernate has become a standard in many Java shops around the globe.
If you run into performance bottlenecks in Groovy, you can always rewrite those parts in Java.
Take a look at the Success Stories for examples of sites that were written in Grails. The Testamonials are also a good place to look for examples. You will use a little more memory(heap and permgen) than a vanilla Java app, but you can tune it just like you would any other Java application.
On the low end you aren't going to find $3/month Hosting options that you could with PHP stack (for example). That said, there are some good caching solutions for Grails apps EhCache, MemCache, etc. Beyond that you can also setup an Apache layer to caches static resources or whatever you need.
Don't mean to pile on here. You've already got some great answers but I just want to add on thing that I was reminded of recently. Scalability depends not only on the software you write (regardless of language/framework) but also on the deployment environment. A very well written application deployed on an undersized or poorly configured server will not scale at all. If you do use Grails or any other Java based framework, the default settings on your container (Tomcat, JBoss, etc.) will probably not be what you need.
Just something to keep in mind,
Dave
Grails run on the JVM. Simply put, you will not find a more scalable, solid and robust runtime platform than the JVM, anywhere. That's Grails's big advantage over, say, PHP or RoR.