Matt RaibleMatt Raible is a writer with a passion for software. 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.

10+ YEARS


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.
You searched this site for "struts". 659 entries found.

You can also try this same search on Google.

Commons Validator with WebWork?

I'm in the midst of integrating WebWork into AppFuse. I started wiring validation last night. This morning, I realized that I could probably use Commons Validator to make validation a lot easier. Here's why:

  • WebWork validation rules are defined per-action, rather than per-object. This makes it difficult to define the validation rules with XDoclet. I can't just put tags in the model object to generate the validation rules. This works with Struts and Spring quite nicely.
  • Using a custom LabelTag, I've been able to hook into Commons Validator and mark fields as required. With WebWork's validation, it seems that this can only be accomplished by adding a required="true" attribute to my <ww:textfield>. I prefer the transparency of the custom tag.
  • I've never been able to get WebWork's client-side validation working. Commons Validator has excellent client-side validation support.
  • Spring has support classes for Commons Validator - leading me to believe that I can configure validation in Spring and re-use its JavascriptValidatorTag.

Now I just need to figure out 1) how to hook WebWork custom tags (or my own custom tag) into the validator to mark fields required and 2) how to write a validation interceptor that uses Commons Validator. Whaddya think? Are there advantages to using WW's validation over Commons Validator? Any tips for writing an interceptor or modifying the custom tags?

Posted in Java at Sep 04 2004, 11:10:08 AM MDT 4 Comments

Going to ApacheCon?

Are you heading to ApacheCon this year? I am.

Thank you for your recent session proposals for ApacheCon US 2004.

The following session has been accepted and scheduled.

  (1010) 'Comparing Web Frameworks: Struts, Spring MVC, WebWork, Tapestry & JSF'

You will receive more information about this soon,
if you haven't already.

Vegas baby. :-P

Posted in Java at Aug 27 2004, 03:48:48 PM MDT 5 Comments

My Tiles to SiteMesh Migration

I spent a few hours last night replacing Tiles with SiteMesh in AppFuse. I had the Struts version done in 2 hours, and most of the Spring version done in an additional hour. Then I spent another 3 hours today twiddling with things and getting it just right. During this process, I discovered a few things I thought I'd share. Keep in mind that I'm pretty much a SiteMesh rookie. Hopefully, implementing and using it in AppFuse will help me to fully understand its power.

  • SiteMesh lacks injection. Tiles allows you to inject JSP fragments into your base layout on a per-page basis. I didn't use this feature much, but I did use it to determine which menu should show up on what pages. For example, the login page would get a "projects used" menu, the signup page wouldn't have a menu, and all other pages would get the standard site menu. With SiteMesh, all of this seems to be done best with JSP includes and some <c:if> logic in your decorator. I ended up using <c:import> in my login.jsp for the login menu, importing nothing for signup, and using <c:if> statements in my decorator to see if the user was logged in. If they were, then I import the site menu and its necessary scripts and styles. In the end, this worked fine and it's probably easier for new AppFuse users to understand - so that's a good thing.
  • Injecting scripts and stylesheets. With Tiles, I was able to easily control which scripts and stylesheets were shown on each page. With SiteMesh, this is pretty easy to do by putting them in the <head> element of your page. However, what I would've really liked to see is the ability to put these in an included JSP and have them end up in the <head> of the final document. I know it's virtually impossible, but it would be cool.
  • Headings. Adding a <title> title element per-page works great using the <title> tag. However, if you want to add a heading (which I specify with an <h1> tag), you have to use a <content> tag. It would be cool if I could somehow use <h1> or <heading> in my page to indicate a heading. I ended up going with the following in each page to specify the title and heading:
    <title><fmt:message key="mainMenu.title"/></title>
    <content tag="heading"><fmt:message key="mainMenu.heading"/></content>
    There's probably an easier way to do this, but this works for now.
  • Injecting <body> ids. Using body ids to set styles on a per-page basis is a great way to control CSS. With Tiles, I set this as an attribute in tiles-config.xml and then grabbed/used it with the following JSTL code:
        <c:set var="bodyId" scope="request">
            <tiles:getAsString name="body.id" ignore="true"/>
        </c:set>

    <body<c:if test="${not empty bodyId}"> id="<c:out value="${bodyId}"/>"</c:if>>
    Yeah, it's ugly, but it works. With SiteMesh, you can easily set a body id by using <body id="name">. In fact, you don't even need to wrap your content with it, you can simpley do <body id="name"/>. I'm grabbing and using this in my decorator with the following code. This works, but it would be cool if I could check for the existence of the attribute first - so I could eliminate id="" when no body id is set.
    <body id="<decorator:getProperty property='body.id'/>">
  • Inheritance. With Tiles, you could extend page definitions and override attributes. This feature seems to be completely lacking in SiteMesh. I don't know how you could implement it, but it would be nice to have something where you could specify the parent - for instance, to use the same <head> content.
  • Error page decoration. SiteMesh seems to be incapable of decorating error pages (i.e. 404) in Tomcat 5.0.x (even if I add <dispatcher>ERROR</dispatcher> to the filter-mapping). A workaround is to use wrap the error page with a <page:applyDecorator> tag. This works, but if you specify elements in <head>, they will end up in the body of page, rather than in the decorator's header.
  • SiteMesh simplifies. Switching from Tiles to SiteMesh allowed me to delete somewhere around 8 JSPs. AppFuse has 34 after committing everything. Most of these were JSPs that sat in the root folder and had a one-liner to pull in a Tiles definition. However, it also eliminated 11 JSPs from the Spring MVC install - allowing reduction of duplication. The Spring MVC install now has 17 JSPs.

So there you have it. AppFuse now uses SiteMesh instead of Tiles! I'm sure the implementation will get cleaner and more refined as more folks use it. I'm looking forward to deleting some chunks out of AppFuse's tutorials because SiteMesh makes page development so much easier. The hardest part of SiteMesh is setting up the infrastructure. Once you're got that done, you hardly ever touch it again.

Next task: WebWork integration.

Posted in Java at Aug 21 2004, 11:50:50 PM MDT 14 Comments

One thing's for sure

The Java Community certainly does care about JSF. Regardless of whether folks like it or hate it - there's definitely a lot of opinions! Who woulda thunk a simple blog entry would get so much traffic? Wierd.

You know it's a late night when Erik posts before you go to bed...

Posted in Java at Aug 20 2004, 04:52:09 AM MDT 10 Comments

Should I ditch Tiles in AppFuse?

I've haven't been developing applications with AppFuse since May. Instead, I've been using Equinox. One of the main things in Equinox I've grown to love is SiteMesh. It's worked in all the webapps I've written, which utilize frameworks like Struts, Spring MVC, WebWork, Tapestry and JSF. Tiles will only work in 3 of those.

I think it's time to make an executive decision on AppFuse and ditch Tiles in place of SiteMesh. It's faster and easier to develop with, and it doesn't get in your way. In fact, I didn't have to change a single line of SiteMesh-related code to support any of the aforementioned frameworks. Furthermore, using SiteMesh would also greatly reduce the duplicate between frameworks. I've thought about keeping Tiles around, but it's a pain in the ass to maintain parallel sets of documentation.

Whaddya think - any reason you can think of to keep Tiles? I can't. In fact, I think I'd cringe if I had to start my next AppFuse-based project w/o SiteMesh.

Posted in Java at Aug 18 2004, 10:11:56 AM MDT 33 Comments

log.debug vs. logger.debug - which do you prefer?

This is probably a bit of a religious debate, but it can't hurt to ask. Do you prefer to use log.debug() or logger.debug() in your Java classes? A fair amount of open source projects use Commons Logging and many of them seem to use logger. Personally, I prefer log (esp. b/c it's shorter), but I'm willing to change based on what the community (particularly AppFuse users) prefer.

Here's another tip I learned today. I typically declare a log variable for each class, such as this one in BaseAction.java:

    protected static Log log = LogFactory.getLog(BaseAction.class);

A better design can be found in Spring's DaoSupport classes. They have a logger variable that all its subclasses can use - eliminating the need to initialize a log variable in each class.

    protected final Log logger = LogFactory.getLog(getClass());

Obviously this is cleaner than AppFuse's current design - so I'll be changing it for 1.6. Any reasons why I shouldn't?

Posted in Java at Aug 16 2004, 09:47:58 PM MDT 21 Comments

My JSF Experience

Of all the MVC Frameworks I've developed with in the last few weeks (Struts, Spring MVC, WebWork and Tapestry) - JSF was by far the worst. And it's not the implementations that are the problem, it's the spec itself (as far as I can tell). Plain and simple, it does not simplify web development.

I spent 3 days developing a simple JSF app - most of it which I had done in the first day. The last 2 days have been spent migrating to MyFaces and trying to find clean ways to do things. My perspective on JSF after this experience? Run away. Run far, far away. All of the above mentioned frameworks are MUCH superior to this technology. Let's get on with the things I learned.

  • MyFaces handles duplicate posts nicely. If you hit "reload" on your browser after saving a record, you get presented with an empty form rather than a duplicate record. I believe I got a duplicate record with Sun's RI.
  • The ability to specify an "action" attribute on a button (or a link) and them map that action to a page (in faces-config.xml) is pretty cool.
  • Every button or link clicked results in a form post. That's just wrong - why can't I have true links like the web is supposed to? So much for bookmarks.
  • Saving state on the client results in enormously long URLs and/or hidden fields.
  • JSF support is fairly non-existent. Unlike the other MVC frameworks, the MyFaces mailing list has hardly any traffic and the Sun forums aren't much better.
  • The MyFaces website seems to be down whenever I want to look something up on it, like right now.
  • I did find some CRUD examples, like this this one, but was disappointed to find that i18n is not considered for setting success messages. I ended up using the solution described in this post. 6 lines of code to set a success message - you've got to be kidding me! Most frameworks have a simple 1-2 liner.
  • Waiting for JSPs to compile the first time has surprisingly become painful after using Tapestry, Velocity and FreeMarker for the last 2 weeks.
  • Integration with Spring is fairly easy (code is in CVS), but MyFaces spits out an error when it shouldn't be.
  • Validation messages are ugly. For instance, when a required field isn't filled in, I get: "lastName": Value is required. I was able to override the default messages, but I was never able to use the label of the field (vs. the field's id).
  • The <h:messages> tag is practically worthless. Sure it's great for displaying messages (error and success), but that's about it. It has a "layout" attribute that doesn't even work in Sun's RI, and in MyFaces it just wraps a <span> with a <ul><li> or a <table>. Both of these layouts are useless b/c you can't set a css class on them. I ended up using "table" and having to set a generic CSS rule (width: 100%) in order to get the message/error bar to show across the top of my page. This tag also doesn't allow you to escape HTML.
  • The <h:dataTable> component is nothing like the displaytag. MyFaces claims to have a pageable/sortable component, but it requires custom logic/methods in your managed-bean. Yuck. I ended up using <h:dataTable>, which has neither sorting or paging. This is only because I couldn't get an <h:commandLink> working inside a displaytag column.
  • JSF-created apps are pretty much untestable. Managed-beans are testable, but the UI seems really difficult with jWebUnit and Canoo's WebTest. IMO, it should be possible to specify a URL to edit a record (i.e. editUser.html?id=2). With JSF and my master/detail app, the link to edit actually sets about 5 hidden form fields with JavaScript and then submits the form. I could probably figure the URL out, but it'd be ugly. Also, the MyFaces <h:dataTable> will not render an "id" attribute if you specify one. This is needed to verify tables and their data with jWebUnit.
  • When using "ant reload" to reload my application (using Tomcat's Ant Tasks), I kept encountering a ThreadDeath error. This seems to be specific to MyFaces as I never saw it with other frameworks or Sun's RI.

Like Tapestry, I felt like I was banging my head against the wall a fair amount. However, with Tapestry (and all the other frameworks), I was able to get exactly the behavior I wanted w/o too much work. I could produce clean and user-friendly error messages - (Tapestry already had clean required messages built in). I was able to write a jUnitWebTest to test all CRUD activities. With JSF, I was able to test one thing - adding a new record. I couldn't edit it b/c the JavaScript support (which I tend to not use) puked every time it encountered a JSF-generated JavaScript function.

My opinion after all of this? If you know Struts, Spring MVC and WebWork are fairly easy to learn. WebWork is simpler and elegant, but Spring MVC supports more view options out-of-the-box. Tapestry is cool, but you'll have to invest a lot of time into learning it and you'll probably get caught up in its cult and forever be claiming "Tapestry Rocks!" which can get annoying to your fellow developers. ;-) Finally, I can confirm that SiteMesh rocks - it worked for all the frameworks I used and I never had to change a single line of code.

Whatever you do, don't use JSF. Not yet anyway.

Posted in Java at Aug 06 2004, 04:53:22 PM MDT 76 Comments

The Joy of developing with JSF

I plan to write up a "My JSF Experience" post later today, but first, I'm forced to rant on the state of JSF implementations. First of all, I must say that JSF isn't so bad. It's cool how you can map buttons to "actions" defined in a navigation entry, as well as to call a method in a managed bean. The problem that I'm experiencing is that the JSF implementations, both from Sun and MyFaces - are errrrr, not so good.

I actually managed to almost finish my simple JSF sample app in one day, but then decided to shoot off some questions to see if I could resolve some remaining issues. Then based on feedback I received, I decided to switch from Sun's RI to MyFaces - not only for the "sortable" grid (I still don't know if it exists), but also Spring supports it w/o using an add-on library.

Ever since I switched, things just haven't gone right. First of all, MyFaces, requires your implement a <listener> in web.xml - who knows why, but you get an error indicating you need it if you don't have it. Standard JSF doesn't require this - why does MyFaces?

OK, I can deal with adding the listener. Everything works as with Sun's RI - and even better since the "layout" attribute of <h:messages> actually works. BTW, why isn't "div" a choice instead of "table" - whoever designed these choices obviously still uses Netscape 4 and table-based layouts. I'm happy now. MyFaces seems to solve the duplicate post issue so if you refresh after adding a record, it just shows a blank form. Cool, I can live with that.

One problem I found, that likely exists in both implementations, is that it's a true pain-in-the-ass to get a declared ResourceBundle in a managed-bean. Here's the method I'm currently using to add a success message:

    public void addMessage(String key, String arg) {
        ApplicationFactory factory = (ApplicationFactory)
            FactoryFinder.getFactory(FactoryFinder.APPLICATION_FACTORY);
        String bundleName = factory.getApplication().getMessageBundle();
        ResourceBundle messages = ResourceBundle.getBundle(bundleName);
        MessageFormat form = new MessageFormat(messages.getString(key));

        String msg = form.format(new Object[]{arg});
        FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().addMessage(null, 
                new FacesMessage(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_INFO, msg, msg));
    }

There has to be an easier way! Please tell me there is. I admit that I'm a JSF rookie - having just started using it two days ago, but it seems ridiculous that all the "success message" examples out there don't even consider i18n.

So now I have my success messages working, but I discover that there's no way to escape HTML (using <h:messages>) from my ResourceBundle (to put bold around a part of the message). ALL of the other MVC frameworks I've been dealing with allow this - why doesn't JSF?! Again, I'm hoping someone tells me I'm ignorant and there is a way to do this.

Lastly, I tried to upgrade to the latest MyFaces snapshot from CVS to solve this bug and now I can't even get my fricken app to start up because of this issue. Are these the hoops that developers have to go through to get started with JSF? Thump, thump, thump. My head is starting to hurt.

Update: I'm an idiot about the "can't get my app to start thing" - I didn't copy all the new myfaces*.jar files into WEB-INF/lib. Heh. =P~

BTW, MyFaces requires a whole slew of JAR files just like Struts. Here's my current inventory:

  commons-codec-1.2.jar
  commons-collections-3.0.jar
  commons-digester-1.5.jar
  commons-validator.jar
  commons-oro.jar
  commons-logging.jar
  jstl.jar
  myfaces.jar
  myfaces-components.jar
  myfaces-jsf-api.jar

Posted in Java at Aug 06 2004, 10:35:05 AM MDT 4 Comments

RE: Why use Maven

Warner has a post about why he likes Maven. He might not know it, but he's actually ripping on AppFuse, its directory structure, and build file. I like getting ripped on, so that doesn't bother me. What bother's me is that Warner has comments turned off so no one can get him back. ;-)

The main reason that AppFuse uses Ant over Maven is speed. Maven runs much slower than Ant. Period. Also, with an open source project like AppFuse - I try to appeal to the larger audience, who likely has Ant installed. Other OS projects I work on (displaytag and struts-menu) both use Maven and people have a lot harder time trying to build from source b/c of Maven issues. Lastly, I like having a complete download - rather than download-dependencies-after-you-download-the-project like Maven does. I realize if I did use Maven I could package the dependencies in the app - which is likely what I'd do anyway since the main repositories seem to be constantly out-of-date.

Recently, I had a similar experience to Warner. As part of my current contract, I was tasked to write a couple of Maven sample apps. Warner came to my rescue and helped me out a lot, but I felt like I was jumping through a lot of hoops to do simple stuff that was already done in the Ant version of my app. I guess I'm just not a Maven guy. A project that's done right, regardless of if it's done with Ant or Maven, should build by typing "ant" or "maven" - or at least provide you help on what you need to type. Some projects, like Spring and Struts, actually allow you to use either one out-of-the-box. That's a pretty cool idea and likely keeps everyone happy.

It sounds like Warner has re-worked AppFuse to work with Maven. Care to donate your couple hours of work? I wouldn't use it personally, but there has been interest in a Maven version. Some folks seem to like slow build tools.

Posted in Java at Aug 04 2004, 03:29:04 PM MDT 26 Comments

My Tapestry Experience

I've finished migrating the sample app I'm working on from WebWork to Tapestry. You can also read about my WebWork experience. WebWork took me 2 full days to complete and the Tapestry version took me about 4. I had a bit of an advantage with WebWork as I've read a lot about it before working with it. I'm probably a bit biases against Tapestry because everyone thinks it's the bees knees - I don't mean to be harsh - I'm just reporting through the eyes of a developer. I'm sure I'll have similar gripes with JSF. Below is a list of things I discovered:

  • There's something wrong with a project when its documentation is outdated and folks tell you to "Buy the book" rather than "read the documentation". On that same note, most of the documentation that does exist seems to be targeted at the advanced user.
  • Like WebWork, there was no simple CRUD example I could look at. Then, like a ray of light from the sky - Warner published one yesterday! This tutorial vastly improved my productivity - thanks Warner! The only things I saw that I'd change in this tutorial is the use of individual setters vs. a domain object. Also, an ICallback is in the code, but never really used.
  • The recommended way to name templates (.html) and page specification (.page) files is starting with an Uppercase letter. So rather than home.html (which most web developers are used to), it's recommended you use Home.html. Of course, this is easy to change - just seems like a weird recommendation, almost Apple-ish or Microsoft-ish.
  • By default, all templates and pages are cached. Sure this is good because Tapestry is production-ready, but when you're developing - this needs to be off so you can get deploy+reload functionality. If you're using Tomcat, you can turn caching off by setting a $CATALINA_OPTS environment variable with value "-Dorg.apache.tapestry.disable-caching=true" (no quotes).
  • Tapestry integrates with Spring very nicely. So easy it's almost silly. When I first created my list screen, it actually had only one line: public abstract UserManager getUserManager(); - and then I used OGNL to get my list of users: userManager.users. It doesn't get much easier than that.
  • While setting success messages is fairly easy - I couldn't find a good way to prevent duplicate postings. With most frameworks, I stuff messages in the session and then retrieve them on the next page. With Tapestry, you have to throw a RedirectException if you want a true redirect (which requires a lot to calculate the URL of a page). I ended up using a PageRedirectException in hopes of simplifying this - but this seems to just do a forward instead of a redirect. In the few hours I spent on it, I couldn't find a way to save success messages and have them persist through a redirect. The reason I want to use a redirect is so a refresh of the page doesn't submit everything again. I know it's trivial, but is is an issue that most frameworks don't handle cleanly (except for Struts).
  • There's no way to test Tapestry classes - since they're abstract, you can't just invoke them and test. Granted the classes are simple - but as long as other frameworks allow you to test their .java files and Tapestry doesn't - this will be an issue.
  • When you first enter a blank form (i.e. to add a new user), the cursor's focus is put on the first required field. As a developer and user, I'd like to control this a little more (for example, by putting it on the first field). Furthermore, I'd like to control it easily - without having to subclass ValidationDelegate. On that same note, it'd be cool if required fields had an asterisk by default. WebWork does this and Spring/Struts can do this using Hatcher's LabelTag.
  • There's no easy way to get the URL of a page - for example, to use in a <button>'s onclick handler to do location.href. I ended up having to implement a method in my page class, and a @Block in my template, setting the button's value with OGNL, and then using JavaScript to do onclick="location.href=this.value". The default components that ship with Tapestry only produce links and submit buttons (that must be in a form).

When developing this sample app, I often felt like I was banging my head against the wall. This is likely because I didn't want to take the time to truly understand how Tapestry works - I just wanted to get my app done. I did end up buying Tapestry in Action, but I probably won't read it until I have time or decide to use Tapestry on a project. I agree that Tapestry is cool, but it's certainly not intuitive for a Struts guy like me. I do look forward to working with it in the future and I'm sure I'll grow to like it more as I gain more experience.

Many thanks to Erik for his tech support and knowledge and to Warner for his nice kickstart tutorial.

Posted in Java at Aug 03 2004, 04:39:42 PM MDT 6 Comments