The Angular Mini-Book is a
guide to getting started with Angular. You'll learn how to develop a bare-bones application, test it, and
deploy it. Then you'll move on to adding Bootstrap, Angular Material, continuous integration, and authentication.
Spring Boot is a popular framework for building REST APIs. You'll learn how to integrate Angular with Spring Boot and use security best practices like HTTPS and a content security policy.
For book updates, follow @angular_book on Twitter.
The JHipster Mini-Book is a
guide to getting started with hip technologies today: Angular, Bootstrap, and Spring
Boot. All of these frameworks are wrapped up in an easy-to-use project called JHipster.
This book shows you how to build an app with JHipster, and guides you through the plethora of tools, techniques and options you can use. Furthermore, it explains the UI and API building blocks so you understand the underpinnings of your great application.
For book updates, follow @jhipster-book on Twitter.
SourceForge's CVS repositories have been acting up since yesterday - at least for me. I just did a clean checkout of AppFuse and I got version 1.0. WTF? Even ViewCVS shows that my latest code is there. Wierd.
I've been thinking about how to structure AppFuse for the upcoming Spring and iBatis enhancements. These enhancements shouldn't require any directory structure changes. However, I've received some suggestions to change the common, ejb and web directory structure to be a little more inline with the tiers. So it would become something more like database, business and web (or dao, service and web). After thinking about this for the last couple of days, it seems to make sense. I picked up the notion of common from Erik Hatcher's JavaDevWithAnt
, which I borrowed heavily from when creating AppFuse. Erik used common because this represented classes that would be included in both the web tier and the EJB tier. But since I (currently) don't plan on every adding EJBs to AppFuse, does it make sense? Even if I did, I'd probably only use SessionBeans, and those could easily fit into the service layer. The nice thing about moving the business layer (currently in web/**/services) to it's own directory is that it will get it's own JAR (with hardly any modifications to build.xml) and can be used outside of the webapp.
The nice thing about isolating the web directory to web-only classes is I can use Ant to replace any Struts-specific classes with WebWork or Tapestry. To prevent AppFuse from being cluttered with too many options, it'll ship with Struts out-of-the-box. If users want WebWork for their framework, they can download a WebWork version of the web-tier and run an Ant target that will replace all the Struts stuff with WebWorks stuff. It seems like the cleanest way to do web framework switching.
Another thing that might happen to AppFuse, caused by my enthusiasm to try out everything, is that it will contain too much stuff for a basic web application. It currently has security and user management built in, which is what most webapps need. I recently added in OSCache and Clickstream. OSCache is not enabled, but most webapps can probably use it somewhere. Clickstream is a different story. For most of the webapps I've built, this is not needed at all. Most of the apps are no more than 20 screens, and it's unlikely the client will care where people go the most. Another option that deserves ripping out is the idea of Struts' submodules. I tend to rip this out as the first thing when starting a new project. File Upload is something I've used rarely, so I should probably lose that feature too.
There are also other technologies that I've thought of adding to AppFuse, namely Quartz and Lucene. However, I've only used Quartz on 1 of my last 5 projects and Lucene on 2 - so obviously these might be considered bloat for a basic webapp. I think the best thing would be to implement these in AppFuse, on my own, and then document how I did it on the wiki (for an example, see diagramming build.xml with Vizant). If folks need to use it they can add it on their own. Documentation is always good, and if I can just document how to add stuff, I can certainly reduce the bloat.
Whaddya think - is it better to include options out-of-the-box or simply document them? Should I restructure the directories to match the tiers more?
