My project's domain is of eTendering. And we are planing to use Spring and Hibernate in the architecture and in presentation Spring MVC but we want look and feel like silverlight of .Net or Flex of adobe in short we are planning for Ajax framework in presentaion. So SpringMVC will be worthfull? I have seen wicket and openxava but I am still confused so please suggest correct option in terms of my domain's complexity.
Depends on your needs:
Spring MVC - this option will leave you with writing AJAX on your own (via JQuery for instance) along with HTML and so forth. It might be tedious, but you're controlling everything. It's also up to you what will be the quality of your resulting HTML and how good it will be indexed by SEO.
JSF - this option provides you with a number of components and allows you to create AJAX based forms and handles it out-of-box. But when it comes to writing custom components, it won't that easy as just writing JS/JQuery on your own. Also it generates not that pretty HTML which is not of that good quality and you might be less indexed by SEOs.
GWT - this choice would mean that you don't write JS, instead you write logic in Java and then it transforms to JS. From one hand it will provide you with good-looking AJAX-based app where you don't need to write JS, from the other hand it's a) pretty complicated to write really good-looking apps UI b) it will add another step in your development cycle (it takes pretty much time when you generate that JS) c) it almost won't allow your pages to be indexed. Also, if it comes to such derivatives as SmartGWT, they provide a large set of cool-looking components, but they always require money for support.
Vaadin - this is AJAX based framework that partially generates Java to JS, but it also sends requests go server for logic execution (of course in GWT this happens as well, but not that often, GWT tries to execute logic on client). It takes less time to compile sources to JS and it's also almost impossible to make pages being indexed.
ZK - another AJAX based framework. unlike other frameworks that allow you to work with only one pattern, it can work in MVC, MVP, MVVM modes. It doesn't compile Java sources to JS thus all the requests go to the server (I've heard about internal company's benchmarks that showed it was actually faster than GWT, but I think it depends on your processing logic). SEO won't make it with ZK at all, but it's possible to include ZK components into JSP pages (though this functionality is not free) which makes it possible to kill both birds. It will be not trivial to write your own components with ZK, but it has a wide range of ready-to-use components.
So you should consider several things: SEO, money you can give for the framework, how much AJAX you need and do you want to write it on your own, etc.
Also pay attention to those patterns I mentioned: MVP for instance is suitable for complicated interfaces and is supported by GWT, Vaadin, ZK. MVVM is very cool because of its binding and is supported by JSF and ZK.
Related
i have to start a new project, a webapp with lots of forms and screens and i really don't know which technology fit best. The application is an ERP like app, with very few animations and lot of forms. The goal is to reduce at minimum reloads and waiting time, it has to be as close as possible to a normal desktop app (a lot of work to look like a marvelous VB6 app :-)
On the one hand we have client side MVC (backbone). It's cool to have all the code running on client but in my mind this implies repetition of lot of code (for example all models definitions) from server (PHP + Fuel). Sure once loaded all the informations task like paginations or grid work without any delay but it also present some problems of synchronization (other users can change data and i have to manually invalidate data on client).
On the other hand we have pjax. The idea is to make all the templating and so on on server, just implement a logic to return the page without the frame for pjax request or full page on new requests. No code duplication, very simple client side.
I've read the the story from basecamp and from twitter and both the point make sense to me. You can't relay on visitor computer (features, performance ...)
The more i think about it the mode i like pjax over MVC, but maybe i'm missing something. Which are the MVC advantages over pjax or pjax disadvantages over Client side MVC ?
Thanks a lot
Backbone.js is good for heavy, single page web apps that never truly post back, but have lots of ajaxian things going on, interdependent cascading dropdowns, etc. It has a very good API for events and collections. If you have plentiful client side javascript, it can be a helpful way to organize it. It is opinionated in the sense that it expects your server-side architecture to be RESTful by default, and you have to make some effort to use it for non RESTful APIs.
The project I'm working on is an ERP web app as well, with asp.net MVC on the server-side. I've learned that Backbone (with handlebars as the templating system), and .net mvc really don't play together that well. If you go Backbone, you really have to go full-hog (controller methods serve up json, that's it). On pages in this app that are more or less 'normal' web pages with some forms, Backbone is the wrong choice.
I just googled pjax for the first time, so I've basically just read the short description at the top of the page, but I suspect that might be the way to go for your scenario, in keeping with Keep It Simple Silly principles.
Considering the most popular MVC/MVVM client-side patterns (like Knockout.js, Angular.js, Ember.js, and others), I have one great doubt:
Also considering the modeling redundance in both sides, what is the advantages and disvantages to use those client-side patterns with MVC server-side patterns?
I struggled with how to answer this question... hopefully this helps, even if it is in a round-about way.
While some of the pros/cons have already been stated, I think the best rundown is in this answer.
For me, the biggest advantage to using client-side logic is the rich UI aspect.
But the key part of your question seems to be "model redundancy" (I'd call it duplicated logic, or at least having potential for duplicated logic). In my opinion, that is a problem which may exist independently of the pros/cons in the previous link.
So first of all, I think that the decision of whether or not to use a client-side framework should be made based on the well-documented pros and cons. Once that decision is made, the associated problems can be solved.
Lets assume you are using some sort of server-side framework/platform, as well as a client-side framework to provide a little bit of UI interactivity. Now there is a problem with where to put the model logic: on the client, server, or both.
One way to solve the problem is to define your model logic in only the client or the server. Then you have no code duplication, but it affects some of the higher-level pros/cons.
For example, if your model logic is 100% server-side, you lose some of the interactive part of the UI. Or, you are constantly throwing the model to/from the server, which will have a few cons.
If your model logic is 100% client-side, you could suffer performance problems, depending on the size of your view / model. This is one of the reasons Twitter is moving to a server-side processing model.
Then there is "both"... having model logic exist in both the client and the server. I think this is the best solution, as long as no logic is duplicated.
For example, on a shopping cart page, you may recalculate the cost of an order based on the price of a product, and a user-editable quantity box. I think this logic should only exist on the client. Other model properties that do not change once loaded are probably fine hosted on the server.
There's a lot of gray area here... I struggle with putting all the eggs in one basket. For example, choosing a client-side framework, creating a lot of client-side logic, and then [hypothetically] running into problems with performance, browser support, or something like that. Now you may want to tweak a page or two for performance (like move it server-side, a la Twitter). But I think being smart about how you structure your code will help mitigate that issue. If your code is maintainable and clean, moving logic from client to server won't be difficult.
The advantage is that the client side patterns are applicable at the client where the server has no direct reach. If you're building a rich, interactive HTML UI then use client side MVVM. Server side MVC may still be relevant in that case for delivering appropriate content to the client. For example, the ASP.NET WebAPI is a framework for creating HTTP APIs which has a similar controller architecture to the ASP.NET MVC framework. The API implemented with this framework may be called by client side code resulting in MVC on the server side and MVVM on the client side. Normally, when using MVC server side and MVVM client side, the responsibilities of the respective sides are very different and thus there is no redundancy.
The fact you an incorporate a MVVM model into an already implemented MVC framework is also a great thing, we recently added knockout to some new project pages to fit with in an already outdated MVC framework (old pages, not the framework itself).
I think MVVM is fantastic as the above answer states it provides an exceptional user experience with extremely fast response times, you can hide your validation calls in the backround with out slowing them down and its intuitive.
The pain however is that it is VERY hard to unit test and you can get some extremely LARGE javascript files, also the extra coding we've had to do as our legacy systems still run on IE6 is ridiculous.
But MVVM and MVC don't have to be used exclusively on there own, we use both. But having 3 levels of validation is something that still bugs me.
advantages
This can rock.
disvantages
You can screw it.
Seriously. Making use of transporting part of the frontend logic into the browser can boost your application development why you keep more strict data-processing encapsulated on server-side.
This is basically layering. Two layers, the one above talks with the one below and vice-versa:
[client] <--> [server]
You normally exchange value objects in a lightweight serialization format like Json between the two.
This can fairly well map what users expect in a useful structure while domain objects on server-side could not be that detailed.
However, the real power will be if the server-side is not in written in javascript at some certain point because I think you can not create well domain objects there. Consider Scala (or something similar expressive) then if you run into that issue.
Ten months later after this question, I have used the both patterns inside the same application.
The only problem was the need to map the models twice.
MVC (ASP.NET MVC 4 Web API)
The most important resource was the routes.
Models were created to database interactions and as arguments for
controllers' actions.
Controllers were created to manipulate the API
requisitions and to render the views.
Views were not modeled with
server-side models, but all the resources of Partial Views and
Sections.
MVVM (Knockout.js)
Models were created with the same properties as the server-side models.
Views were binded with models' properties, and decreased a lot of the views' size.
View-models were created with the values provided from API methods.
Overall, the MVC combination with MVVM were very useful, but it needed a big expertise and knowledge. Patience is required too, because you need to think about the responsibilites of each application layer.
I was reading about JSF that it's a UI framework and provides some UI components. But how is it better or different from number of components that are available from jQueryUI, AngularJS, React, Vue.js, Svelte, ExtJS, or even plain HTML, CSS and JavaScript.
Why should someone learn JSF?
JSF to plain JSP/Servlet/HTML/CSS/JS is like as jQuery to plain JS: do more with less code. To take PrimeFaces (jQuery + jQuery UI based) as an example, browse through its showcase to see complete code examples. BootsFaces (jQuery + Bootstrap UI based) has also a showcase with complete code examples. If you study those examples closely, then you'll see that you basically need a simple Javabean class as model and a XHTML file as view.
Note that you should not see JSF as replacement of alone HTML/CSS/JS, you should also take the server side part into account (specifically: JSP/Servlet). JSF removes the need of all the boilerplate of gathering HTTP request parameters, converting/validating them, updating the model values, executing the right Java method to do the business stuff and generating the HTML/CSS/JS boilerplate code. With JSF you basically end up with a XHTML page as view definition and a Javabean class as model definition. This greatly speeds up development.
As with every component based web MVC framework, you have in JSF less fine-grained control over the rendered HTML/CSS/JS. Adding custom JS code isn't that easy as you have to take the JSF view state in the server side into account as well (e.g. enabling a disabled button in JS side won't enable the button in JSF side, which is in turn a huge security advantage). If that is however a major showstopper, then rather look for an action based web MVC framework like Spring MVC. You'll only take into account that you have to write all that HTML/CSS/JS code (and prevention against XSS, CSRF and DOM-manipulation!) yourself. Also if you fall back from Facelets to JSP, you'll miss advanced templating capabilities as well.
On the other hand, if you have a big JSP/Servlet/HTML/CSS/JS/jQuery based website and you'd like to refactor the repeated JSP/Servlet/HTML/CSS/JS/jQuery boilerplate code into reusable components, then one of the solutions would be JSF. Custom templates, tagfiles and components can aid in this. In that perspective, JSF stands above JSP/Servlet/HTML/CSS/JS/jQuery (and that's also why it's pretty important to understand those basics before diving into JSF).
You can find a real world kickoff JSF based project here: Java EE Kickoff App. You'll see that it contains next to JSF as good HTML5, CSS3 and jQuery.
See also:
Difference between Request MVC and Component MVC
Difference between JSP, Servlet and JSF
What are the main disadvantages of JSF 2.0?
Is it possible to use JSF+Facelets with HTML 4/5?
When to use <ui:include>, tag files, composite components and/or custom components?
JSF was created to make it so that java shops didn't have to learn stuff like jQuery and build complex JS but instead focus on a purely Java stack. In a world where time is money and lots of places already focusing on Java development, one less language/piece in the stack makes training and maintaining faster and thus cheaper.
I'll add that JavaScript is easy to become a maintenance nightmare on large teams, especially if some of the developers on the project are not highly web savvy.
With Javascript and frameworks such as jQuery you have full flexibility and full control . With ext's etc you lose much control and must adapt to the framework. With JSF you totally lose control and must totally adapt to the framework. You're invoked in lifecycles etc. and finally you have no control when the call to the server can be made and where not. If you are to do something considered 'special', you're in very hard position. And in JSF world even such basic things as multicolumn table sort or fields where you can type only limited set of characters (such as number field) are considered 'special'.
However, the more flexibility you have, the more errors or bad practices you can made. High flexibility works only with highly intelligent programmers, others will turn the project into unmanagable nightmare.
But, with JSF and its limited flexibility, there's always only a few (or even only one) correct way to do something. You are very limited, you can't make shortcuts, you must write more XML etc. - but when adapting to standard, there's better control on the code the unexperienced or low-skilled programmers will produce. As a result, big corporations love JSF because it is 'safer' for them.
When I moved from GWT to JSF, I was shocked, how many things, that was natural to me, was considered highly untypical and how much simple things were so hard to achieve. What's more, even making the smallest changes, such as adding ':' sign after label, which in GWT/jQuery powered app would be changing one function generating label, required changing dozens of files with localized properties, which wasn't even considered by anyone except me strange...
The benefits of using JSF are not only in generating xhtml + css + js. Sometimes JSF imposes a restriction on the markup you can generate, like any component based framework. But JSF is not just for that, its lifecyle helps greately. After validating the input it can update the model and sync your server side beans without any effort. you just say "whatever the user types here, check if it's a number, if yes then store it in the property YY in object XX" and JSF will do all that.
So yes, you can still use JQuery, JS, etc. But JSF provides many benefits when it comes to writing server side code and saves you from a lot of boiler plate.
I strongly disagree that jsf adds anything. It only adds overhead. Doing ui stuff on the server is the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. And javascript on large teams works great - its called reusing code.
Just wrap the jquery in some jsp tags, thats all you need and youre done, and dont endure the.shackles and scalability issues with.jsf and richfaces.
Having worked with JSF, Spring MVC, Struts, Grails, JQuery, and ExtJS my opinion is that Grails + ExtJS is one powerful combination.
I would pick Grails over JSF any day. I like the completeness of ExtJS as the client side framework and library, but it comes with a steeper learning curve than JQuery.
Here are the biggest differences between jQuery & JSF:
no MVC architecture
no state control (store date in session or conversation, auto-clean up, etc.)
no (default) validation library
no templating library
no advanced navigation/routing
client side
jQuery was never intended to be used as a full stack webframework. It was more intended for replacing low-level JS code so that writing JS becomes easier and more powerfull in less lines of code.
And it should thus mostly be used to add behaviour on HTML elements.
Having used ExtJS framework for a large web application, I know how easy it is to use. The ExtJS (Schena) is best suited for (Oracle 11g) database interactions in MVC architecture. The View was for the visual / user interactions. The controller specified the 'processing' and the triggers that needed to be used form the PLSQL packages (the API for the CRUD, SQL select queries etc.). The Model and the store files were used to 'map' the data items to the Viewer / inputs.
ExtJS is not suitable for non database intensive web interfaces - where Angular JS may be a better fit.
I just started a new GWT project for a client and I'm interested in hearing people's experience with various GWT MVC architectures. On a recent project, I used both GXT MVC, as well as a custom messaging solution (based on Appcelerator's MQ). GXT MVC worked OK, but it seemed like overkill for GWT and was hard to make work with browser history. I've heard of PureMVC and GWTiger, but never used them. Our custom MQ solution worked pretty well, but made it difficult to test components with JUnit.
In addition, I've heard that Google Wave (a GWT application) is written using a Model-View-Presenter pattern. A sample MVP application was recently published, but looking at the code, it doesn't seem that intuitive.
If you were building a new GWT application, which architecture would you use? What are the pros and cons of your choice?
Thanks,
Matt
It's worth noting that google has finally written out a tutorial for designing using the mvp architecture. It clarifies a lot of the elements from the google i/o talk listed above. Take a looK: https://developers.google.com/web-toolkit/articles/mvp-architecture
I am glad this question has been asked, because GWT desperatley needs a rails-like way of structuring an application. A simple approach based on best practices that will work for 90 % of all use-cases and enables super easy testability.
In the past years I have been using my own implementation of MVP with a very passive view that enslaves itself to whatever the Presenter tells him to do.
My solution consisted of the following:
an interface per widget defining the methods to control the visual appearance
an implementing class that can be a Composite or use an external widget library
a central Presenter for a screen that hosts N views that are made up of M widgets
a central model per screen that holds the data associated with the current visual appearance
generic listener classes like "SourcesAddEvents[CustomerDTO]" (the editor does not like the real symbols for java generics here, so I used thoe brackets), because otherwise you will have lots of the same interfaces who just differ by the type
The Views get a reference to the presenter as their constructor parameter, so they can initialize their events with the presenter. The presenter will handles those events and notify other widgets/views and or call gwt-rpc that on success puts its result into the model. The model has a typical "Property[List[String]] names = ...." property change listener mechanism that is registered with the presenter so that the update of a model by an gwt-rpc request goes to all views/widgets that are interested.
With this appraoch I have gotten very easy testability with EasyMock for my AsynInterfaces. I also got the ability to easily exchange the implementation of a view/widget, because all I had to rewrite was the code that notified the presenter of some event - regardless of the underlying widget (Button, Links, etc).
Problems with my approach:
My current implementation makes it hard to synchronize data-values between the central models of different screens. Say you have a screen that displays a set of categories and another screen that lets you add/edit those items. Currently it is very hard to propagate those change events across the boundaries of the screens, because the values are cached in those models and it is hard to find our whether some things are dirty (would have been easy in a traditional web1.0-html-dumb-terminal kind of scenario with serverside declarative caching).
The constructor parameters of the views enable super-easy testing, but without a solid Dependency-Injection framework, one will have some UGLY factory/setup code inside "onModuleLoad()". At the time I started this, I was not aware of Google GIN, so when I refactor my app, I will use that to get rid of this boilerplate. An interesting example here is the "HigherLower" game inside the GIN-Trunk.
I did not get History right the first time, so it is hard to navigate from one part of my app to another. My approach is not aware of History, which is a serious downturn.
My Solutions to those problems:
Use GIN to remove the setup boilerplate that is hard to maintain
While moving from Gwt-Ext to GXT, use its MVC framework as an EventBus to attach/detach modular screens, to avoid the caching/synchronization issues
Think of some kind of "Place"-Abstraction like Ray Ryan described in his talk at I/O 09, which bridges the Event-Gap between GXT-MVC and GWTs-Hitory approach
Use MVP for widgets to isolate data access
Summary:
I dont think one can use a single "MVP" approach for an entire app. One definetly needs history for app-navigation, a eventbus like GXT-MVC to attach/detach screens, and MVP to enable easy testing of data access for widgets.
I therefore propose a layered approach that combines these three elements, since I believe that the "one-event-mvp-system"-solution wont work. Navigation/Screen-Attaching/Data-Access are three separate concerns and I will refactor my app (move to GXT) in the following months to utilize all three event-frameworks for each concerns separately (best tool for the job). All three elements need not be aware of each other. I do know that my solution only applies for GXT-projects.
When writing big GWT apps, I feel like I have to reinvent something like Spring-MVC on the client, which really sucks, because it takes a lot of time and brain-power to spit out something elegant as Spring MVC. GWT needs an app framework much more than those tiny little JS-optimizations that the compiler-guys work so hard on.
Here is a recent Google IO presentation on architecting your GWT application.
Enjoy.
-JP
If you're interested in using the MVP architecture, you might want to take a look at GWTP: http://code.google.com/p/gwt-platform/ . It's an open source MVP framework I'm working on, that supports many nice features of GWT, including code splitting and history management, with a simple annotation-based API. It is quite recent, but is already being used in a number of projects.
You should have a look at GWT Portlets. We developed the GWT Portlets Framework while working on a large HR Portal application and it is now free and open source. From the GWT Portlets website (hosted on Google code):
The programming model is somewhat similar to writing JSR168 portlets for a portal server (Liferay, JBoss Portal etc.). The "portal" is your application built using the GWT Portlets framework as a library. Application functionality is developed as loosely coupled Portlets each with an optional server side DataProvider.
Every Portlet knows how to externalize its state into a serializable PortletFactory subclass (momento / DTO / factory pattern) making important functionality possible:
CRUD operations are handled by a single GWT RPC for all Portlets
The layout of Portlets on a "page" can be represented as a tree of WidgetFactory's (an interface implemented by PortletFactory)
Trees of WidgetFactory's can be serialized and marshalled to/from XML on the server, to store GUI layouts (or "pages") in XML page files
Other important features of the framework are listed below:
Pages can be edited in the browser at runtime (by developers and/or users) using the framework layout editor
Portlets are positioned absolutely so can use scrolling regions
Portlets are configurable, indicate when they are busy loading for automatic "loading spinner" display and can be maximized
Themed widgets including a styled dialog box, a CSS styled button replacement, small toolbuttons and a HTML template driven menu
GWT Portlets is implemented in Java code and does not wrap any external Javascript libraries. It does not impose any server side framework (e.g. Spring or J2EE) but is designed to work well in conjunction with such frameworks.
The context is that I don't want to use Zend MVC - controllers, helpers, decorators etc - that's overkill for what I am writing.
I've scoured the jQuery site plugins section and these issues bother me most:
I have to search a lot for plugins - it is tedious.
I have to check dependencies with jQuery versions. Thankfully I decided to stick with only jQuery or noConflict() would have driven me crazy.
I have to hook-up all the id's and names of form elements across HTML+CSS+JQuery through Controllers, Views etc.
And all this because there is no other simpler PHP wrapper over jQuery plugins than ZendX_JQuery - and plugins is where the attractive scripts and effects are.
Writing a in-house replacement to ZendX_JQuery will be a huge task in itself. But if you have to wrap third party jQuery plugins in PHP and maintain the thing it is full time job in itself.
So I want to know if Zend_Dojo is much easier than ZendX_JQuery. I'm asking before trying out because I'd have to spend a couple more days installing, configuring and testing all the standard Dojo controls and then I can decide. All that's tedious for a rather simple app which may grow later on.
The alternative would be a "jQuery-inside" PHP widget library that is stable and will work for a year without being broken or upgraded.
Something like GWT or ZK or ASP.Net where you don't have to do low-level HTML+jQuery coding and hand-tweaking for every page with all the ajax controls and form elements.
Or should I just drop an MVC framework altogether and replace it with a custom set of scripts only using Zend components where necessary - like Zend_Validate, Zend_Form etc.
I've been working on desktop apps for some time and the switch to AJAX + MVC + Zend is proving a bit too unwieldy, especially given the abundance of design patterns in Zend MVC.
My recommendation would be to use neither ZendX_JQuery or Zend_Dojo. By the sounds of it, that's overkill for you as well. My thoughts may be coloured by the fact that I don't like to mix PHP and JavaScript code except where absolutely necessary - yes, it may be easier to let a component write your JavaScript for you, but it's never going to be as clean as you could write it yourself.
That way, you also maintain separation between behaviour and presentation - always a good thing, as it makes it easier to use the concepts of progressive enhancement.
I agree with Stephen Orr- I use neither jquery nor dojo (after trying both). I use Zend_Form filters / decorators heavily because client side validation has to be redone on the server side anyway. With some custom decorators, you can do it all in html/php.
I try and avoid ajax where possible, and use prototype / scriptaculous where it cannot be avoided. They are lightweight and provide handy shortcuts to use in other JS code.