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 "eclipse". 283 entries found.

You can also try this same search on Google.

Building a Better Maven with Ant

It looks like the Ant folks are thinking of building a better Maven.

I see many developers adopt Maven because they want a build system able to provide common features with no effort. Most of them don't want to spend much time writing an Ant script, or have seen or heard that maintaining Ant build scripts is troublesome. So they choose to use Maven only because it's easy to use for common use cases: install, write a simple pom of a few lines or generate it using an archetype, and you're ready to compile, test and package your new project following the Maven standard structure. They also get dependency management for free, and with only a few more effort they have multi module builds, and some nice features like code analysis, coverage, and a set of report gathered in a web site. That's really nice and that's what I like about Maven.

But Maven suffers from a lack of flexibility and robustness IMHO. And later the same people who first adopted Maven because of its perceived ease of use become frustrated when they need to tweek the system to their own needs or don't understand how the release plugin work. Then some of them go back to Ant, first having to go through a sometimes painful road to describe their whole build system in xml, especially if they aren't Ant experts. Others try to use new build tools like raven, buildr or others.

I really like Ant, and think it is a very good basis for robust and flexible build systems. People with enough knowledge of Ant can write very good build systems, testable, maintainable and adaptable. But you need to get your hands dirty, and you need to get a good knowledge of some of the mechanisms which can make an Ant based build system manageable: import, scripts and scriptdef, macrodef, presetdef, and so on. [Read More]

What do you think - is this a good idea?

I agree that Maven has its warts, but I don't think it's that bad. I've also heard that Maven has been successfully implemented at large companyies like eBay, Intuit and E*Trade[1]. Is the "Maven sucks" meme largely something that exists in the blogosphere, but not in the real world?

I think the biggest benefit of Maven is dependency management. I think it makes your code more modular and easier to build. Rather than having a monolithic source-code tree that depends on itself being built in a certain order, you can have individual modules that pull dependencies from a central location. This can be done with Maven's Ant Tasks as well. I don't see a problem with building a better Maven with Ant, but to try and build a better Central Repository sounds like a nightmare to me. The current repository has been improved for years and is much better than it was a couple years ago. That being said, I would love to see somebody build a more accurate Central Repository. Ideally, it'd be done sometime next week. ;-)

[1] I could be wrong about these companies. If you're a developer at one of these companies, please confirm or deny. Any comments on Maven's success at these companies would be great as well.

Update: Speaking of Maven, there's an interesting comment on a Javalobby post I wrote:

With all the critical remarks the Maven project is receiving, wouldn't it be time for some Maven project lead to step up and explain the team's position? Or is it completely deaf to the sentiments? How many builds have to fail, how much more headaches are needed before others start their own version of Maven and do it the right way (like Don [Brown])?

Seems like an excellent question to me. Guys?

Posted in Java at Feb 11 2008, 02:07:12 PM MST 18 Comments

Maven 2 Archetypes get a much needed improvement

Yesterday, a new version of the Maven Archetype Plugin was released. This release incorporates many of the improvements that were developed in a different project - code named "Archetype NG". The two major improvements are 1) you only have to use "mvn archetype:create" now and 2) you can create archetypes from existing projects.

I haven't tried #2, but #1 seems to work pretty well (especially since AppFuse archetypes are the first 9 ;-)).

[Read More]

Posted in Java at Feb 09 2008, 03:20:00 PM MST 15 Comments

Groovy, Rails needs Components, RIA Frameworks compared and faster WebTests

Here's some interesting snippets I found while reading blogs today:

  • Stop writing plain old Java code. Groovy obsoletes plain old Java. We ought to just say "Java 7 = Groovy" and move on. -- Stuart Halloway
  • So far my experience is that I love the Ruby language and don't want to go back to doing Java except when/if I need to to pay the bills. But Rails I'm not as sold on. Mind you I'm not here to bash on Rails, there are some great things there and other people have done a fine job of praising them. But there are some things I definitely miss from Tapestry, and the most significant one is components. -- MysteryCoder
  • If you're looking for maximum control over presentation and the best possible appearance for the finished product, I would say Flex is probably the way to go. If you're a Java developer using Java on the server side, or you just can't stand the thought of having your app run in the Flash player and would prefer JavaScript, GWT is probably going to work out very well for you. Open Laszlo is going to offer a great deal of platform versatility, but at the expense of some polish and features available in the other two frameworks. - Kevin Whinnery in Three RIA Platforms Compared: Adobe Flex, Google Web Toolkit, and OpenLaszlo
  • A new experimental feature of WebTest allows to specify the number of threads that should be used for the tests what can bring enormous speed improvements without modification of the tests. -- Marc Guillemot

To summarize: use Groovy over Java, Rails needs components, Flex is the best RIA framework and WebTest keeps getting better. These aren't my words, but I don't see much fault in them either.

Posted in Java at Feb 05 2008, 12:30:34 AM MST 6 Comments

All Java web frameworks should support hot deploy of a single class

In Anyone else using Groovy?, Tim Fennell (inventor of Stripes) raves at how much he likes Groovy now that it supports Java 5 features. He writes that Groovy might offer a solution to make development with Stripes faster:

The other thing I've been wondering about is that if there were enough demand for it we could try adding "improved" groovy support. E.g. throw your groovy actions under WEB-INF and we'll use groovy's built in stuff to do auto-reloading etc.

Gregg Bolinger responds with an excellent idea:

It would be really cool if Stripes could automatically discover and load changes to action beans (including new ones) without the entire app restarting, regardless of what the action bean is written in. But I realize that is a pretty tall order. :)

I agree that it might be a tall order, but I don't think it's impossible. In fact, I think all Java-based web frameworks should support hot deploy of a single class. We shouldn't have to buy JavaRebel to do this. It should be mandatory.

When an application reaches a certain size, the startup time can get pretty lengthy. This is lost development time. Furthermore, if any part of the development cycle takes longer than 15 seconds, there's a good chance developers will do something else (check their e-mail, move onto another task, etc.). Multi-tasking may be a good skill to have, but it's a horrible way to be productive.

Of the frameworks I'm familiar with, only Tapestry 5 and Seam support reloading single classes without restarting the whole application. Why can't the other frameworks "borrow" Tapestry 5's code? Maybe someone should just buy ZeroTurnaround and give away JavaRebel for free.

If I had one wish for 2008, it would be for all Java web frameworks to support this feature. Pretty Please?

Posted in Java at Jan 24 2008, 03:11:18 PM MST 21 Comments

Migrating a Rails app to Grails

There's an interesting trend I've seen happening at companies over the last year. More and more, they're experimenting with Rails and/or Grails for both prototyping and real applications. I think this is an excellent use for these frameworks as they both are very productive. The reasons for their productivity is simple: zero turnaround and less code.

For a Java-based company that's built their bread and butter applications on Java and been successful with it, both frameworks can be disruptive. Bread and butter applications tend to be large and somewhat difficult to maintain. In my experience, the biggest maintenance headache is not writing code or fixing bugs, it's the turnaround time required to make changes, run tests and build the application to test in your browser. Since Rails and Grails eliminate the turnaround, it's only natural for developers at companies with a lengthy build process to love their increased productivity.

Over the next couple weeks, I'm going to do some experimenting with porting a Rails application to Grails. Why? Because I think companies are going to have a difficult time choosing between these two frameworks for rapid prototyping and (possible) production deployments. While both frameworks are great for prototyping, the last thing most developers want to do is throw away the prototype and develop it with something else. They want to continue to enhance the prototype and eventually put it into production. With Rails and Grails (and many others), it's possible to build the real application in a matter of weeks, so why shouldn't it be put into production?

For most Java-based companies, putting a Rails application into production is unfamiliar territory. However, a Grails application is just a WAR, so they can continue to use all the Java infrastructure they know and love. So for companies with an established, tuned and successful JVM infrastructure, does it really make sense to use Rails over Grails? The only thing I can think of is language reasons - there's a lot of Ruby fanatics out there.

So again, the purpose of my experiment is simple: to see if a Grails app can do everything a Rails app can. As for language features and scalability, I'm not really concerned with that right now. I'm not looking to prove that either framework should be used for all web applications - just certain types.

Has anyone out there ported a Rails application to Grails? If so, are there any gotchas I should watch out for?

NOTE: I realize that Rails can be deployed on the JVM with JRuby. However, I think many companies have existing Java-based tools (logging, JMX, Spring backends, etc.) that more easily integrate with Grails than Rails. I could be wrong.

Posted in Java at Jan 22 2008, 09:37:49 AM MST 12 Comments

FreeMarker vs. JSP 2

I've been doing quite a bit of prototyping with Spring MVC and Struts 2 with both JSP and FreeMarker in the last few months. I'm trying to migrate a proprietary servlet-based framework with a proprietary JSP compiler to something that's open source. There's a couple of important features that the proprietary view framework has:

  1. It's expression language allows methods to be called with arguments.
  2. Templates can be loaded from a JAR on a remote server.
  3. XML in variables is escaped by default.

For #1, I've found this to be impossible with JSP EL or JSTL. I've created JSP functions that allow argument passing, but they don't allow overloading of functions. FreeMarker solves #1.

For #2, JSPs again fail because the templates have to be on the file system or in a WAR. FreeMarker solves this problem as well.

For #3, neither JSP or FreeMarker solve this problem. I realize it can be fixed in FreeMarker by hacking the code - I've done the same with Tomcat and solved it for JSP as well.

So based on the requirements in this project, FreeMarker is the clear winner. Here's some problems that I see with using it:

  • No XML escaping of expressions by default
  • No compile-time checking of expressions
  • IDE support is limited to Eclipse (meaning very little in the way of code-completion)

FreeMarker users - are there other problems you've experienced when using FreeMarker in your applications?

Posted in Java at Jan 17 2008, 12:37:12 PM MST 12 Comments

RE: Why Grails doesn't use Maven

Graeme Rocher's in Why Grails doesn't use Maven:

In his post entitled "Grails - The Good, The Bad and the Ugly", Jonas has some nice praise for Grails, his main beef is that it is not built on Maven.

So I wanted to clarify why exactly we chose not use Maven (by default) and the explanation is there for all to see in Jonas' first example of creating a Grails application vs creating a Maven project:

Instead of

grails create-app name

could be just

mvn archetype:create -U\
-DarchetypeGroupId=net.liftweb\
-DarchetypeArtifactId=lift-archetype-blank\
-DarchetypeVersion=0.4\
-DremoteRepositories=http://scala-tools.org/repo-releases\
-DgroupId=your.proj.gid -DartifactId=your-proj-id

My goodness, what a mouthful the Maven example is. There is a common acronym in the open source world called RTFM (read the *ing manual), when a user asks a question on a mailing list and the "experts" respond by pointing them to the place in the manual.

I think Maven's biggest problems are 1) poor metadata in the central repository and 2) the source of metadata in projects (pom.xml).

I believe #1 can be fixed if the Maven guys allow dependencies to be fixed based on user feedback. It's also gotten a lot better in recent years. In reality, maintaining transitive dependencies is hard and I believe Maven has done a good job. In reality, they're the only ones that slurp up transitive dependencies, so the only other option is to maintain the dependencies yourself.

To fix #2, I think the problem is mainly XML and the verboseness of the elements-only pom.xml that Maven requires. Most of the contents of a pom.xml are either dependencies, plugins or exclusions/variances of Maven's conventions. What if Maven's metadata was pluggable? What if XML was only one option? What if you could write a pom.groovy and describe your entire build process in 5 lines instead of 500? That would be very cool.

I'm still a Maven fan, mostly because it's greatly simplified the maintenance of and releasing of AppFuse. When I do GWT, Seam or Grails development in the future, you can be sure I'll try to use Maven to do the development. Why? Because I've learned how to use it and I don't feel the pain that so many others talk about. I also think it really shines on really large projects (builds that produce 30+ WARs for example). An Ant-based system on really large projects can become quite burdensome and difficult to maintain. Not only that, but it's very difficult to maintain a modular build system (where you can build/test/deploy a single WAR) with Ant. In my experience, really large Ant-based systems take forever to process that everything is up-to-date whereas Maven systems depend on each other and require you to keep them up to date. Sure it requires you to be smarter and run "mvn install" on your subprojects, but I'd rather do that than wait 5 minutes for Ant to process everything just to run a test.

You might remember that the main reason I used to prefer Ant over Maven was speed. That was in Maven 1 days. With Maven 2, speed is no longer a problem and I've found it much easier to run "mvn jetty:run" than "ant deploy" and wait for Tomcat to restart. IMO, the perfect development environment is one were you can run a command-line command (or use your IDE to start the server) and code away without worrying about restarts. Seam and Grails offer this environment, but it's unlikely your entire organization is going to use standardize on those frameworks and not have anything else. I think Maven and the Maven Jetty Plugin offer a nice alternative for the rest of those applications.

Posted in Java at Jan 16 2008, 10:49:35 AM MST 11 Comments

REST and Seam Talks at Denver's JUG

After a long hiatus, I decided to attend the Denver JUG meeting this evening. Tonight there's a couple of interesting talks:

I'll do my best to live-blog these sessions, so hopefully you can read along and learn everything I do.

Give It a REST by Brian Sletten
This talk isn't an implementation talk, it's more of a motivational talk. Brian is trying to answer the question "Why do we care?". We care because we have a lot of WS-Dissatisfaction. "Conventional" Web Services are often:

  • too difficult for non-trivial tasks (real complexity)
  • too complex for trivial tasks (artificial complexity)

RPC-based Web Services are mythically interoperable and time/process coupled in painful ways. SOAP has largely become popular because of marketing dollars behind in. REST is more like the "hippy" way that has grass-roots support with no corporate sponsor.

What makes SOAP difficult? It's remote procedure calls and its tunneled using existing application protocols (HTTP). Furthermore, there are no nouns (mappings to business terms), only handlers. There are no semantics, only handlers. When you tie yourself to a contract/WSDL, you can have anything back that you want - so as long as its simple XML. This isn't entirely true because a lot of things can be shoved into XML (Word documents that are Base64 encoded).

The main problem with SOAP is it solves a problem that most people don't have. It solves an edge case, rather than the main problem.

Many people say "SOAP is secure and REST isn't".

Why do people believe this? It's because of the long list of SOAP-related security acronyms: XML Encryption, XML Signature, XKMS, SAML, XACML, WS-Security, WS-Trust, XrML. Even if you're using these in your system, there's no proof that your implementation is secure. REST is what we all use on the web with online shopping, etc. We don't seem to have a problem with the security we use everyday on the web, do we?

SAO is an architectural style promoting loose coupling among software participants. Sompanies have rigid definitions of what constitutes a SOA. Many believe that SOAP is an essential piece, but it's not. SOAP 1.2 and Doc Lit are improvements, but are they necessary? Interestingly, 85% of Amazon's users chose REST over SOAP when given the choice.

What is REST? The acronym stands for REpresentational State Transfer. It's an architectural style based on certain constraints designed to elicit properties of scalability and extensibility. It's an idealized notion of how the early web should work and helped drive the way it eventually did work. It's more than just URLs!

Resource-Oriented Computing focuses on information spaces, not code or objects. It focuses on logical connections and reduces complexity by separating actions from nouns. In the history of the web, we started with URLs that pointed to documents. Eventually, these documents became dynamic and were generated on-the-fly.

URLs are locations on the web that are horrible names because they change so much. URIs are good names that have no way of being resolved. Fundamentally, REST is a separation of the parts of the system: Nouns, Verbs and Representation. A Resource (in a REST architecture) can be a file, a service or a concept. It can also have different representations. Resources are named with Resource Identifiers. It's simply the means of naming a resource. It's a standard syntax that allows various schemes. Often known as URIs (or IRIs). It's orthogonal to satisfying the reference and it's one of the missing pieces of "normal" web services.

Examples of Representation include 1) a particular dereferencing of a Resource Identifier to a Resource at a particular time, 2) a byte-stream tagged with metadata or 3) it could change based on request or processing/display capabilities of the client (Firefox vs. WAP).

REST's verbs are design decisions to minimize the the complexity of implementing a system. GET retrieves a resource and always returns the exact same result. It doesn't change anything in the backend system. Because of this, it allows for easier layering of your system - particularly when you introduce caching for GETs. POST is used to create (or update) a Resource. It does not require a "known URI" and it supports the append operation. PUT creates (or updates) a Resource, but requires a "known URI" and also supports an overwrite operation. Lastly, there is DELETE, which removes a Resource. This is not supported in modern browsers. Just because browsers don't support them doesn't mean you can't implement them in your applications.

REST's concepts were developed by Roy Fielding in his thesis. He was trying to create a system that had the following architectural properties: performance, scalability, generality, simplicity and modifiability. REST allows us to create true client-server applications. To satisfy scalability requirements, REST is stateless. All parameters travel with the request and no session information is maintained on the server. This improves scalability through load-balancing and allows visibility of intermediary processors.

One of the first things that becomes a bottleneck in enterprise systems is the database. This works fine if you like paying Oracle. By using REST and HTTP concepts, it's easy to take advantage of a cache. This allows replication of an external data set where it's too large to copy locally. REST allows you to create Layered Systems that allow you to have managed dependencies between layers. Having a RESTful architecture allows you to swap out the backend without changing the front-end and vise-versa.

Now Brian is going to do some demos using NetKernel. He recommends using HTML documents to describe services. The beauty of developing a RESTful system is there's nothing preventing you from appending ?wsdl to your URLs to return SOAP.

Invoking functionality using web-friendly techniques is a very nice way to build web applications.

What is controversial in REST? When you are not dereferencing you should not look at the contents of the URI string to gain other information.. However, if you structure your URLs in your application in a hierarchical manner, people will be able to use URIs in this way.

What isn't controversial? No one believes you should rely on sessions or other state at the application level. They also believe using nouns, not verbs is an excellent idea.


Seam by Norman Richards
Seam isn't just a web framework, it's an integration technology for building applications for the web. It's a technology that takes your persistence and web technologies and unifies them so you have a simpler view of your system.

First of all, what is Seam?

  • It's a unified component and event model - you access all your components the same way
  • It has a declarative state with a rich context model
  • It provides deep integration with minimal glue code
  • It minimizes configuration, prefers annotations to XML
  • It allows a freedom of architectures and technologies
  • It also allows testing of components in context

With Seam, you have a number of technology choices to make. The first is which business component model you want to use (EJB 3 vs. POJO). You might choose EJB 3 if you want more clustering capabilities. For persistence, you can use Hibernate or any JPA implementation. Norman recommends using JPA if possible. You also have a choice of languages: Java or Groovy (and possibly Scala in the future). Seam gives you a choice of web frameworks. All the examples today will use JSF, but there's also support for GWT and 2.1 will have support for Wicket. Also, there's some non-committers developing support for Flex. Norman believes component-based web frameworks are the best way to develop web applications. While I hear this from a lot of folks component-based framework authors, it seems ironic that the "best" way to develop webapps is not the most popular way (PHP, Struts, Rails).

I think it's ironic that there's a REST (no state) and a Seam (it's all about state) talk in the same night. I'm tempted to ask why a stateful architecture is better than a REST one, but I'm not really that interested in the answer. I think your architecture should be determined by the needs of your application, rather than choosing the architecture and then implementing an application with it.

In addition to choices, Seam gives you a number of tools: CRUD generation, Eclipse and NetBeans support and full IDE support in JBoss Tools / JBoss Developer Studio.

Now Norman is doing a demo - starting by creating a new Seam Web Project in Eclipse. He mentions that he's skipped a number of steps: downloading and installing Seam, downloading and installing JBoss and configuring your Seam installation and database in Eclipse. He has two projects in Eclipse - apparently the New Project wizard creates two - one for the application and one for testing. It's strange that the tests don't go in the actual project. The directory structure has src/action and src/model for your Seam components. After doing some simple CRUD, Norman starts JBoss and looks at the master/detail screens it generates.

To make a Java class a Seam component, you usually only have to add a @Name annotation to the class. While trying to show us how the Authenticator/login works, Norman tried to open components.xml. Unfortunately, this crashed Eclipse and 30 seconds later - following a bevy of "file does not exist" errors, we're back in action. To inject dependencies in a Seam environment, you use the @In annotation. In the example class, here's what the code looks like:

try {
  currentUser = (Person) entityManager.createQuery("select p from Person p where" + 
       " p.email = #{identity.username} and p.password=#{identity.password}").getSingleResult();
} catch (NoSuchEntityException e) {
  currentUser = null;
}

This example appears to encourage title coupling with the data layer, rather than loose coupling (i.e. a DAO layer). I'm sure Seam doesn't prevent you from developing a more loosely coupled application.

Bug Alert: The <h:messages> tag looks like it always has an <li> - even when there's only one message. Struts 2 has the same issue with its <s:errors> tag. It's disappointing that so many Java framework developers don't have more attention to HTML details.

Probably the coolest part of Norman's demo is how Eclipse auto-synchronizes with JBoss so he never has to start/stop anything when he changes Facelets pages or Java classes. Of course, hot deploy should be possible with any web application if you're using Eclipse Web Tools effectively.

I do believe all-in-one starter frameworks like Seam, Rails, Grails and AppFuse are excellent. However, I also believe they're solving a problem that only 10% of companies have. Most companies don't have the ability to start applications from scratch - unless they're a startup. Most companies have an existing infrastructure in place for the backend and they simply need a better web framework to slap a pretty face on it. I don't know the best solution for this, but it seems like a logical choice to RESTify the backend (possibly with a web framework) and then use a modern web framework for the front-end. IMHO, the best web frameworks for a RESTified backend are Flex, GWT and Appcelerator. If nothing else, these appear to be the most hyped for 2008.

Many of the enhancements that Seam has added to the Java web programming model are being pushed back into the Web Beans JSR. With Seam, injection is bi-directional (input and output), is continuous during application invocation and dis-injected after action is done. The whole purpose of this is to let Seam handle the state of your application. By not worrying about storing/maintaining state, you as a developer can concentrate on business logic more and get your applications done faster.

At this point, Norman started talking about Seam's events and how you can use them. Unfortunately, my battery ran out and I drifted off to do some other stuff. I'm sure Seam's Event Model is pretty cool, I just missed it.

Posted in Java at Jan 09 2008, 08:59:45 PM MST 5 Comments

Comparing Web Frameworks: Time for a Change?

I first came up with the idea to do a "Comparing Web Frameworks" talk in 2004. I submitted a talk to ApacheCon and it got accepted. From there, I outlined, created sample apps and practiced this talk before ApacheCon. Believe it or not, that was my first time speaking in front of a large audience.

Historical note: October 2004 was a pretty cool month - I discovered Rails and Roller had a 1.0 release candidate.

When I created the presentation, it was in large part due to all the WebWork and Tapestry folks harassing me on this very blog. I started using Struts in June 2001 (the same month 1.0 was released) and had used it successfully on many projects. Part of the reason this blog became so popular was I posted lots of tips and tricks that I learned about Struts (and its related project) while using it. After a while, the noise became too heavy to ignore it - especially after I'd tried Spring MVC. So in an effort to learn more about the the other frameworks, I submitted a talk and forced myself to learn them. It seems to have worked out pretty well.

With that being said, I think it's time for a change. The reason I originally wrote this was to educate developers on how the top Java web frameworks differed and encourage developers to try more than one. A while later, I realized there's different tools for different jobs and it's not a one-size-fits-all web framework world. It's not a component vs. request-based framework world either. There's lots of options now. When I've delivered this talk earlier this year, I've always felt like I've left quite a few frameworks out. The solution could be to add more and more frameworks. However, I don't think that's a good idea. The talk is already difficult to squeeze into 90 minutes and it's unlikely that adding more frameworks is going to help.

The change I'd like to do is to reduce the number of frameworks down to (what I consider) the top web frameworks for deploying to the JVM. What are those frameworks? IMHO, they are as follows, in no particular order:

  • GWT-Ext
  • Wicket
  • Grails
  • Flex/OpenLaszlo
  • Seam
  • Struts 2

The RIFE, Tapestry and ZK folks can start bitching now. Sorry - less frameworks make for a more interesting talk. Maybe I'll add you in the future and I can ask the audience which ones they want compared then we can choose four and go from there. Why don't I mention Spring MVC? Because I think Struts 2 is easier to learn and be productive with and I also like it's more open and active community. I've written applications with both and I like Struts 2 better. As for Flex vs. OpenLaszlo, I'm somewhat torn. It seems like learning Flex is going to be better for your career, but it's likely useless without the Flex Builder - which is not open source. However, at $250, it's likely worth its price. I know the Picnik folks used Flex for their UI - I wonder how much they used Flex Builder in the process?

What do you think? Are these the top web frameworks for JVM deployment today? The next time I give this talk is this Thursday at ApacheCon. I may try to re-write my talk and then give the audience a choice of old vs. new. The downside of doing the new talk is I won't have time to write apps with GWT, Flex or Seam. Anyone care to post their top three pros and cons for any of these frameworks?

Posted in Java at Nov 12 2007, 04:46:56 PM MST 50 Comments

The last external hard drive I'll ever need?

LaCie 2big Network (2-disk RAID) Today I pre-ordered a 1TB LaCie 2big Network (2-disk RAID) hard drive. Looks pretty beefy eh?

Why did I get this? Because it's time to get serious about backup. I currently have 3 external hard drives and none of them are big enough to backup everything. I also tend to use them as alternative storage rather than backup. I'm running out of space on my Linux box ... the list goes on. In reality, you can never have too much disk space can you?

I have a 250 GB Lacie d2 that I'm using on my MacBook Pro with Time Machine. I also have a Lacie Rugged that I use when I travel. I try to backup before I go to do major things - like a training class or speak a conference. That way, if my laptop dies, I can use someone else's Mac and be good to go. If there are no Macs, I keep all my materials in Subversion. Lastly, I have a 200 GB Maxtor that I use as a backup on my Windows box.

My ideal solution is 1) each machine has its own backup hard drive and 2) each machine can store files on a central server. I used to use Samba on Linux, but it seems easier to use my Airport Extreme and a big ol' drive like this Lacie. What's your setup and/or advice?

January 30, 2008 Update: Because of the feedback on my post, I never purchased this hard drive. I still need a back up solution and I'm thinking of using Apple's new Time Capsule. If it works with Windows and Linux - I'm sold.

Posted in General at Nov 06 2007, 03:17:07 PM MST 12 Comments