Raible Designs

AjaxAnywhere

From Ajaxian.com:

AjaxAnywhere is designed to turn any set of existing JSP components into AJAX-aware components without complex JavaScript coding. In contrast to other solutions, AjaxAnywhere is not component-oriented. You will not find here yet another AutoComplete component. Simply separate your web page into multiple zones, and use AjaxAnywhere to refresh only those zones that needs to be updated.

This is one of the few Ajax projects I've seen that looks to provide a lot of value w/o a whole lot of work. Notice how much it enhances JSF with this cool demo.

Jetty vs. Tomcat vs. Resin: A Performance Comparison

This morning, I did some comparisons between Jetty 5.1.5rc1, Tomcat 5.5.9 and Resin 3.0.14 (OS version). I ran AppFuse's "test-canoo" target, which tests all the JSPs using Canoo WebTest. I did this as a Servlet 2.4 application, and had to tweak some stuff in my web.xml to make it work on Jetty and Resin. Nothing big, just stuff that Tomcat let pass through and these servers didn't. One interesting thing to note that Resin requires you to use "http://java.sun.com/jstl/fmt" for JSTL's "fmt" tag URI, while Jetty and Tomcat require "http://java.sun.com/jstl/fmt_rt". This is with Resin's "fast-jstl" turned off - b/c everything blows up if it's turned on (I don't feel like coding my JSTL to Resin's standards, that's why I turn it off).

Below is a list of the average time it took to run "test-canoo" after I ran it once to compile all the JSPs.

• Jetty: 19 seconds
• Tomcat: 19 seconds
• Resin: 29 seconds

In addition, I tested how long it took for each server to startup - including the initialization of AppFuse.

• Jetty: 7 seconds
• Tomcat: 8 seconds
• Resin: 13 seconds

So what does all this mean? A number of things:

• I need to clean up AppFuse's web.xml a bit for 2.4 applications.
• Putting the database connection pool configuration in a Spring context file (vs. JNDI) makes AppFuse much more portable.
• Jetty isn't as fast as Jetty-lovers say it is (or maybe Tomcat just caught up).
• The open source version of Resin is much slower than the other open source servlet containers.
• I should restructure the build.xml to pull out Tomcat stuff and allow users to specify server deployment settings (i.e. in a ${servername}.xml file).
• Orion still doesn't support the Servlet 2.4 or JSP 2.0 specifications.

Should I change AppFuse's default web framework?

Currently, the default web framework in AppFuse is Struts. It's nothing fancy like Shale or Struts Ti, but rather Struts Classic. Even though Struts is not dead it's a pain in the ass to work with compared to other MVC frameworks like Spring MVC and WebWork. Yesterday, on the AppFuse Mailing List, I kicked off an informal poll about switching to a different default web framework. I think most of the people that choose Struts w/ AppFuse are choosing it b/c it's the default. Making another framework the default would likely same quite a few users a lot of headaches.

So which one should I make the default? Here's my thoughts from the mailing list thread:

I like Spring MVC and WebWork better than Struts, but I believe that WebWork is much easier to understand and develop with. Unfortunately, it's not well documented or marketed, so it's a bit difficult when you run into snags. Of course, if you contact the user community via forums or e-mail, answers flow quickly.
...
I'd like to use the framework that's simplest to understand. Right now, in my eyes, that's WebWork. I think JSF and Tapestry are excellent too (as component-based frameworks), but Tapestry's learning curve is difficult and JSF has a lot of issues (like everything is a post). Hopefully things will get better with JSF 1.2, but it's probably another 6 months before MyFaces supports 1.2 - let alone the app servers.
...
Maybe we should just drop Struts altogether - or replace it with Struts Ti? Unfortunately, it'll probably be a while before it's ready for production (I doubt it's that useable now).

Of course, if a WebWork Book was out - this move would be a lot easier. I did talk to Patrick Lightbody on IM yesterday and he said "it's done" and supposedly he has copies, but I haven't seen anything on the WebWork Blog to prove this.

A related question: how much would it hurt AppFuse if I dropped Struts altogether and went with something like Wicket instead? I'd like to keep that cap at 5 web frameworks. If I dropped Struts and added Wicket, I might lose potential users, which might not be a bad thing.

Biled Again, this time because my design sucks

Looks like I've been biled again. Unlike the last time, this time Hani doesn't offer any specifics, he merely says that my OSS efforts don't do anything other than the "very very basics".

Java, specifically, goes a long way towards ramming down a set of design principles. Said principles are followed fairly blindly by most practitioners. The OSS world is awash with examples of people who have read the right books, but have absolutely no skill or talent at conceptualising or grokking the underlying principles behind the books. To them, the design pattern is an end goal, not a tool. To pick one example (out of thousands), look at Matt Raible's OSS efforts. It has inheritance! It uses PATTERNS! It is LIGHTWEIGHT! Yet, I'd argue that it's very badly designed (if you don't believe me, just try getting it to do anything other than the very very basics.)

I'm assuming that Hani is speaking about AppFuse and Equinox, because my other efforts in OSS are minimal (Roller, Display Tag, XDoclet and Struts Menu). The reason I'm writing this post is because I'm curious to know what Hani tried to do that didn't work? Was it AppFuse/Equinox that failed? Or was it the underlying framework? Did he try to do indexed properties with WebWork or modify build.xml to deploy to Orion? Is the feature he's looking for something we can fix?

As a defense of my use of patterns, lightweight containers, etc. - it's not so much my doing that these happen to exist - they're more of a reflection on what user's want. It's a problem with Java developers in general - if you're not using patterns - users want to know why. Furthermore, most of the J2EE patterns in AppFuse are from the underlying frameworks, not from anything that I did.

As far as the design of AppFuse, I agree it could use some work. There's a lot of stuff in AppFuse that I don't use - so when I start a project with it - I usually rip out about 20-30% percent of it's features b/c I won't use them. Unfortunately, it's not that easy for others to do this b/c they don't know what they'll break if they remove a bunch of stuff. I'd like to move to a more modular, plug-in type architecture - but I have a feeling that that's the path to over-engineering. Even so, it would be pretty cool if it was possible to turn on/off features (even the use of a particular web framework) by changing a properties file.

WebWork Books

What is it about WebWork that makes it so hard to write books about? I remember talking to Kris Thompson (a.k.a. the guy that quit blogging) last summer about WebWork in Action. At that time, it was "almost done". Over a year later and it's still "due out next month" (or is it done?). Almost as bad is Matthew Porter's WebWork Live, which was started late last year. I remember Matthew saying he expected to finish the initial version in March - and there's still not an ERP almost 10 months later.

Here's my guess: the Manning book has been done for months, but the publishing process takes months. As for Porter, my guess is he's too busy providing outstanding support at Contegix to work on the book. Any good conspiracy theories out there? Maybe WebWork has too many patterns that need to be documented?

Building a website with an Open Source CMS

I think the open source community has done an excellent job of figuring out how to create frameworks for developing web applications. But what about websites. You know, the web presence that every company wants - for minimal cost. For most companies, it's nothing more than 5-10 pages that tells a bit about the company, show some management folks and tells you how to get to their offices.

I've developed many websites over the years, many that were static, but more that were dynamic. The unfortunate thing about all of them is they required someone technical to update them. Often, the client had to contact me if they wanted anything new on the site. I've often thought there was a better solution - and I think I'm at a point where I know what customers want, and I know how to provide it. The solution is a Content Management Solution (CMS). One of the biggest problems with static websites is they're not dynamic enough. A CMS can alleviate this problem by reducing the bottleneck that a traditional "webmaster" creates.

In my mind, there are a couple of things that make a good CMS: 1) it's open source (to minimize costs to the client) and 2) it's easy to customize. On the customization front, my demands are a bit more rigorous - mainly because I know what many folks want in a website. Here are my main criteria for a good open source CMS - when it's used to power a regular ol' client-updateable website:

• Design customization: I should be able to customize all the (X)HTML that's generated using one or two files (like SiteMesh allows). It should be possible to change the look and feel of *everything* by modifying some CSS. It should also be possible to use Mike Stenhouse's CSS Framework to simplify layout choices for clients. Ideally, a web designer or regular ol' HTML person could do the customization.
• Static-looking URLs: The site should look like a static site. The URLs should be all lowercase and end with .html. It should be possible to modify all the URLs to look as if all pages are static. Apache's mod_rewrite and the URL Rewrite Filter are great tools for making this happen, but it'd be nice if the administration of the application allowed for setting these rules.
• It shouldn't look like a CMS: No login links, no registration links, etc.
• Ability to easily add dynamic content: It should be easy to add dynamic content - such as RSS Feed headlines to pages.
• Menu Customization: In the application, it should be possible to create menus (both main and local navigation) and configure a page to highlight a menu when a particular page is shown.
• Versioning of pages: In case someone messes something up, it should be easy enough to revert back to a previous version.
• Easy to use: It should be possible to train a marketing person (with little technical knowledge) how to use the system in 10-15 minutes.

For technical companies (such as Virtuas), there are a few additional requirements I'd like to see:

• Articles with syntax highlighting: It should be easy to publish articles with code that's colorized. The Java2HtmlPlugin for JSPWiki is a good example of this. I currently don't know of any for XHTML, XML or scripting languages like Ruby or Python.
• File Upload: For uploading white papers and other technical publications.

So I've started looking at open source CMS's that fill my requirements. Last weekend, I wrote a solution that fills all of these requirements using SiteMesh, JSPWiki, CSS Framework, Acegi Security and the URL Rewrite Filter. It only took me about 6 hours to complete, but after completing it - I started wondering if I really wanted to start another open source project and maintain it. The answer is no, I don't want to create something new - I want to use something that's already out there. However, since I do have something that satisfies all my requirements, I will use it if I can't tweak an existing OS CMS enough.

Here are a list of CMS's that I'll be looking at in the next week or so. If you're associated with any of these projects, please leave a comment and let me know how many of my requirements you satisfy.

• Daisy
• Magnolia
• Bricolage
• phpWebsite
• Mambo/Joomla

I'm a bit hesitant on Daisy b/c it requires XSLT knowledge for design customization. Magnolia has long URLs and doesn't appear like a static site - and the PHP ones often have .php in their URLs. It should be an interesting investigation to see if these (seemingly) heavyweight solutions can solve a few simple requirements.

Stripes

Greg Hinkle writes about a new JDK 5-only Java web framework called Stripes.

Stripes is a presentation framework for building web applications using the latest Java technologies. The main driver behind Stripes is that web application development in Java is just too much work! It seems like every existing framework requires gobs of configuration. Struts is pretty feature-light and has some serious architectural issues. Others, like WebWork 2 and Spring-MVC are much better, but still require a lot of configuration, and seem to require you to learn a whole new language just to get started.

I dig the fact that someone is trying to create a web framework that requires less configuration. It's also very cool that they've released it as 1.0 (rather than 0.1 as many OS projects do) and it also seems to be well documented. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's any support for Spring or dependency injection.

Personally, I don't mind the configuration required by WebWork or Spring MVC - but then again, I use AppFuse and tend to generate most of the configuration code using AppGen. Even so, it would be nice to get away from the configuration requirement. Hopefully more framework authors will find ways to reduce or even eliminate the XML hell we have in Java web frameworks. Kudos to the Tapestry developers for doing this in their 4.0 release.

I like the convention over configuration that Rails uses. It's this same mantra that I've been trying to develop AppFuse with for the past few years. The problem with Java web frameworks is developers want configuration choices - even if they never bother to use them.

I Survived

I'm happy to say I survived the long weekend with Abbie and Jack. Not only that, but we had a lot of fun too. We managed to do some hiking, fishing and even pitched a tent in the backyard for a few hours. Unfortunately, the local Safeway was sold out of marshmallows, so we didn't start a campfire. Highlights of the weekend included dinner at Benihana and riding the Georgetown Loop Railroad. Abbie and I took a ride on it last year, and it was just as much fun this time.

Above all else, I got to know my kids a little bit better this weekend. They're truly special people and were a blast to hang out with. I feel like the luckiest Dad in the world right now.

Weekend with Daddy

When I came home from Michigan a couple of weeks ago, Julie had a surprise for me. "Since you've been traveling so much lately, I think it's my turn." Her family is going to the Bahamas for Labor Day weekend, and she was going to join them - w/o me or the kids. We could have all gone, but going on vacation with two kids is not a vacation. Besides, it's in the Bahamas - and fishing for lobster and boozing on a boat all weekend is not a kid-friendly environment. So I'm flying solo with Abbie and Jack for the weekend.

Julie left this morning on a 6 a.m. flight - first class no less. She had some miles from years ago and decided to treat herself right. So far it's going well - Abbie is still sleeping and Jack is over making farting noises in the corner. Today's activities should be a lot of fun - riding bikes to breakfast (they ride in a trailer behind mine), followed by a hike, naps - and then the camping expedition begins. They love "tents", but the the only tent they've ever seen is in the bed with the covers. Tonight we're going to pitch a tent in the backyard, roast some marshmallows and hot dogs over the fire pit and pretend like we're camping. Hopefully we'll remember to come in before the sprinklers come on in the morning.

CSS Table Gallery

From CSS Beauty:

CSS Table Gallery. Showcase of how CSS and data tables can work together to create usable and pretty results.

I like Chrome de la chrome. Hopefully the available designs will grow so we can pick and choose the ones we want to use in our apps. I might have to use Chrome de la chrome with the Display Tag in the next AppFuse or Equinox release.