Matt RaibleMatt Raible is a Web Developer and Java Champion. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

The Angular Mini-Book 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 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.


Over 10 years ago, I wrote my first blog post. Since then, I've authored books, had kids, traveled the world, found Trish and blogged about it all.

RE: Jetty Ant Plugin

It looks like Jetty has a new Plugin for Ant. If you've used the Jetty Maven Plugin, you know this is a slick way to quickly deploy your application. For those of you wondering about Tomcat, there's a similar Tomcat Maven Plugin that supports tomcat:run and tomcat:run-war. However, it's still in Mojo's sandbox.

I'm pumped to see this Jetty task for Ant because I've been thinking a lot about creating an exploded, full-source archetype for AppFuse 2.0. Of course, it's probably possible to start Jetty and monitor your project for changes w/o this task - but it does seem to make things a fair amount easier. If we do a full-source archetype, it makes sense to support Ant as well - especially since we can probably re-use the build.xml from AppFuse Light.

This brings up a related questions I asked on the AppFuse mailing list yesterday:

A couple of questions for folks using (or planning to use) 2.x:

1. As far as archetypes go, are you using basic or modular?

2. If there was a 3rd type of archetype that included the full source (like AppFuse 1.x), would you use it over the existing basic or modular archetypes? If yes, I'm assuming upgrading is not that big of an issue for you?

If you've tried AppFuse 2.x and would like to answer these questions, please add a comment.

There's another questions about Selenium vs. Canoo WebTest in that post, but that's reserved for another entry where I'll talk about Selenium options in Maven 2.

Posted in Java at Mar 08 2007, 08:13:08 AM MST 3 Comments

  1. Right now we're using the basic archetype - mainly because better than half of our use of AppFuse is to build web front-ends to an existing SOA. For applications that need their own persistence tier, they typically aren't large enough scale for us to require a reusable backend.
  2. It would be very tempting for us to use the full source archetype just because we are so used to the AppFuse 1.x model (I think we have 4 applications in production at St. Jude using Appfuse 1.9.x) - so far I've been able to do everything I want to do without having the full source, but I've often found myself glancing at FishEye to see how something was done. However, the inability to easily upgrade had annoyed us at times. It's much easier to just get something like an Ajax4JSF for free rather than to do it yourself. I guess it mainly depends on how easy it is to add the functionality we would desire from the upgrade w/o following the standard path.

Posted by Matt Stine on March 08, 2007 at 03:47 PM MST #

My 2 cents... AppFuse fulfills two needs in the Java web development space--while it is a great starting point for a new project, it is also a great example for how these technologies can be integrated using best practices. The full source is an invaluable asset to AppFuse users as a place to see how things have been successfully done before. I could see using the full source version to test the waters, but a production app should most likely be based on one of the other Archtypes for simplified application of the community's work. My only hesitation is that there are already a huge selection of options. It can be a bit overwhelming to make the "right" choice currently, I imagine even more so if there are 50% more choices.

Posted by Nathan Anderson on March 08, 2007 at 08:53 PM MST #

To your questions Matt - 1. I have used basic 2. Yes, I had a hard time figuring out where the code actually resides when executing mvn jetty:run - unlike appfuse 1.9.4 that is. I would definitely support the full source archetype.

Posted by Biju Kunjummen on March 11, 2007 at 05:40 AM MDT #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: Allowed