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.
Related
My project has requirement to deploy a Java Based application as an operating system Job (and not use any container). The application need to have following capabilities:-
Scheduling
Few HTTPS based services
Ability to make JMX calls
Storage: Data for last 5 to 10 minutes of transactions (not more than 600 rows X 20 columns). Something like embedded H2 or in-memory options
Decision Tree: Something like Drools..
My manager wants to write this application as a core Java with OSGized Jetty version. I am suggesting to use Spring Boot with embedded Jetty(which will give me ready to use capabilities for Scheduling, JMX Integration and REST Services).
His bend towards core Java is emerging from the requirement that this application needs to be extremely efficient, fast and self-contained. He wants to reduce dependency on any open source. I have never worked directly on OSGI but have used products coming out of it - like eclipse.
Can somebody guide how OSGI based development might benefit over SpringBoot?
For many people, OSGi is superfluous, because they don't see the value in being modular. Not being worth the trouble.
Think about the application lifecycle, more or less being plan-develop-test-deploy.
How many developers you have? If many, OSGi helps a lot, because being modular make the boundaries very clear. You can delegate things very easily.
If outsourcing is your thing, you can just handle the module APIs and tell them to develop against it. They will never know how the rest was implemented, no fear of secrets being leaked.
Unit tests are so easy. You obviously see what you can test, every else you mock/stub/spy/fake. Unit tests can be can be reused in Integration tests, of course that isn't news, but the trick is running Unit tests outside the OSGi container, and Integration tests inside. So if you decide OSGi was not worth it, your code stills works fine (unit tests being the proof).
You can make your app a collection of modules, and every module having independent versioning and source repositories. Makes easier to handle and find bugs. For example, the current app crashed, you find out that sub-module-1.2 is throwing errors, try with version sub-module-1.1(still bad), then version 1.0(good), bug was introduced in 1.1 (avoids bisecting the source code). Programmers don't need to be perfectly synchronized with each other if they are working in different modules.
How do you plan to update the app? Most frameworks are of the all-or-nothing approach, where you have to stop the world, update, then restart the app. If you make things modular, you just need to update that thing. Making the downtime very small, and sometimes even zero.
If you need to make a big change in your app, but can't afford to refactor everything right now. With OSGi you can run the system with both my-module-1.0 and my-module-2.0. You can even adapt my-module-1.0 to redirect calls to my-module-2.0, but that is a kind of last resort hack (just saying that you can, if you want to).
I can do everything you say without OSGi, right? Well, probably you can, but in the end, would be something like OSGi.
I love the Dependency Injection of my framework. No problem, OSGi have something like that.
I hate Dependency Injection, it kills my app perfomance. No problem, you can use something like osgi.getService(MyService.class);. The OSGi container isn't concerned about intercepting every call of your app.
OSGi is like Java++, Java plus modules.
You can mix Spring Boot with OSGi, can't say if this is good or bad. There are many libraries and frameworks that fit your list, many will work out-of-the-box with OSGi.
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?
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've been reading/learning more about Spring lately, and how one would use Spring in combination with other open-source tools like Tomcat and Hibernate. I'm evaluating whether or not Spring MVC could be a possible replacement technology for the project I work on, which uses WebLogic and a LOT of custom-rolled Java EE code. The thing is, I've always suspected that our solution is over-engineered and WAY more complex than it needs to be. Amazingly, it's 2009, and yet, we're writing our own transaction-handling and thread-pooling classes. And it's not like we're Amazon, eBay, or Google, if you know what I mean. Thus, I'm investigating a "simpler is better" option.
So here's my question: I'd like to hear opinions on how you make the decision that a full-blown Java EE application server is necessary, or not. How do you "measure" the size/load/demand on a Java EE app? Number of concurrent users? Total daily transactions? How "heavy" does an app need to get before you throw up your hands in surrender and say, "OK, Tomcat just isn't cutting it, we need JBoss/WebLogic/WebSphere"?
I don't think that the decision to use a full-fledged Java EE server or not should be based on number of users or transactions. Rather it should be based on whether you need the functionality.
In my current project we're actually moving away from JBoss to vanilla Tomcat because we realized we weren't using any of the Java EE functionality beyond basic servlets anyway. We are, however, using Spring. Between Spring's basic object management, transaction handling and JDBC capabilities, we aren't seeing a compelling need for EJB. We currently use Struts 2 rather than Spring's MVC, but I've heard great things about that. At any rate, Spring integrates well with a number of Java web frameworks.
Spring does not attempt to replace certain advanced parts of the JavaEE spec, such as JMS and JTA. Instead, it builds on those, making them consistent with the "Spring way", and generally making them easier to use.
If your application requires the power of the likes of JMS and JTA, then you can easily use them via Spring. Not a problem with that.
Google open sources a lot of their code. If you're writing low-level things yourself, instead of implementing code that's already written, you're often overthinking the problem.
Back to the actual question, Walmart.com, etrade.com, The Weather Channel and quite a few others just use Tomcat. Marketing and sales guys from IBM would have you believe different, perhaps, but there's no upper limit on Tomcat.
Except for EJB, I'm not sure what Tomcat is missing, and I'm not a fan of EJB.
What tomcat does not offer apart from the more exotic elements of Java EE is session beans (aka EJBs). Session beans allow you to isolate your processing efficiently. So you could have one box for the front end, another for the session beans (business logic) and another for the database.
You would want to do this for at least 2 reasons:
Performance; You're finding that one box to handle everything is loading the box too much. Separating the different layers onto different boxes would allow you to scale out. Session beans are also able to load balance at a more fine grained level. Tomcat and other web services of that ilk don't have clustering out of the box.
Flexibility; Now that you've moved your business logic into its own environment you could develop an alternate front end which used the same layer, but say, was a thick client front end for example. Or maybe other contexts would like to make use of the session beans.
Though I should probably point out that if you use web services to communicate with that middle tier, it could also be on tomcat!
The only reason to use a full blown Java EE server is if you need distributed XA transactions, if you don't need XA transactions then you can use Spring + JPA + Tomcat + Bean Validation + JSTL + EL + JSP + Java Mail.
Also a Java EE server is supposed to implement JMS but it does not make sense to run the JMS server in the same VM as the rest of the app server so if you need JMS you should have a separate JMS server.
I strongly disagree with all answers given here.
Everything can be added to Tomcat, including EJB, CDI, JTA, Bean Validation, JAX-RS, etc.
The question is: do you want this? Do you want to assemble all those dependencies in the right versions and test that it all works together, when others have already done this?
Let's be clear: nobody uses only Tomcat! Everyone always adds a web framework, an ioc container, an orm, a transaction manager, web services, etc etc
Lightweight Java EE servers like TomEE already include all of that and makes the full stack experience of having all those things integrated so much better.
Maybe this can be of interest:
http://onjava.com/onjava/2006/02/08/j2ee-without-application-server.html
HTH