10 Java Technology Resolutions for 2009

Discussions

News: 10 Java Technology Resolutions for 2009

  1. 10 Java Technology Resolutions for 2009 (69 messages)

    2009 is coming to your way and it’s time to get ready on what technology lies ahead. Refactor, refactor and refactor is the theme for 2009. A whole new technology is coming your way and it’s good to take a sneak peek on what technology is worth evaluating to be used for our projects in 2009. The first half technology are the technologies that you should keep your eyes at while the next half are the technologies that you might want to start trying for your next project in 2009. So here are the lists for 2009: Rails 3 Now Rails is not exactly a Java framework, but with the ability to run Rails on JVM with JRuby IMHO it’s worth considering to include Rails to the list. Rails has enjoyed being the popular web action framework for getting things ready in split seconds. Now with the join force with Merb, Rails is gaining momentum to become more popular than ever. Merb is ORM and javascript library agnostic framework with superb performance over Rails. It will be interesting to keep your eyes on how this advantage can be added to Rails in 2009. Grails 1.1 If you’re not really comfortable with Rails/Ruby or perhaps you would like to use your existing Java knowledge without sacrificing the development productivity, then you might want to keep your eyes on the next up and coming release of Grails. It should be interesting to follow this new release since G2One, the company that is behind Groovy and Grails has been acquired by SpringSource. And if there is one thing that Grails is lack of is its marketing. It should be interesting to see how SpringSource, the company that is behind the popular Spring Framework able to make Grails to be more popular than ever, especially in the Java community itself. The recent Beta release has many convenient functionality on the ORM side which makes it more interesting to be evaluated. To read the rest, go to http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/10-java-technology-resolution-for-2009/ .

    Threaded Messages (69)

  2. Well, not sure about that. If you are into Rails anyway, you might consider JRuby, Grails and Rails 3. Otherwise, why should you care? If you really need a scripting language in Java, Groovy is much more natural than Ruby. Rails/Grails is still a niche technology and likely to stay that way, because it is only relevant in front end web development with a single datasource attached. JavaFX is probably the one technology that can safely be ignored. I found myself laughing tears when looking into the examples. Of course, not Java's fault - Sun is apparently not pouring enough (or the wrong) resources into the development. When comparing JavaFX to Flex or Silverlight there is not very much in favour of JavaFX. Happy new year.
  3. Re: 10 Java Technology Resolution for 2009[ Go to top ]

    I found myself laughing tears when looking into the examples.
    Wait till you see Flex and Silverlight!
    When comparing JavaFX to Flex or Silverlight ..
    So I guess you must have laughed yourself to death when you saw them. :) Things to like about JavaFX. 1. Not XML 2. Can use Java on the front and back. 3. Opensource 4. Binding is better (see Chris' blog).
  4. JavaFX is different[ Go to top ]

    JavaFX is really different from Silver Light and Flex. It seems to me that it has a broader scope and simpler syntax (I'm not a big fan of XML). It's a brand new product, and somehow its quality has been proved. We'll see what it will turn out to be in the next release.
  5. Different yes - but poor[ Go to top ]

    Really, three (or four?) years of development and then this? No usable high-level components, no really compelling examples. Hey, we released a new framework that competes with silverlight and flex and our prime examples are stuff like rotating spheres and calculating prime numbers. You kill me! Lets face it: Sun does not have the resources, the vision and the people any more to be able to remotely compete with Microsoft or Adobe in this playing field.
  6. NOT XML is a con[ Go to top ]

    1. Not XML
    XML is preferred by far over the 8 nested braces . XML code is much easier to read for human beings. I saw teachers having trouble with complex syntax while following a JavaFX training. A basic sample showing this: http://javafx.com/samples/PuzzlePieces/index.html
  7. Re: NOT XML is a con[ Go to top ]

    XML code is much easier to read for human beings.
    Maybe for some. It is horrible for reading/writing code.
    I saw teachers having trouble with complex syntax while following a JavaFX training.
    Sayse more about the teachers than JavaFx
  8. I see decomposition into elemental parts next year: storage, processing, energy, and raison d'etre. Amazon, Google, map-reduce, VMs. For me, this means more REST, ESB, Hadoop, GWT, and opportunities that Java library modularization provides. Microsoft will emerge as a superior tools vendor too. Three Technologies for the storage-kings under the sky, Seven for the service-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Opensource Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark platform In the Land of vendors where the Shadows lie. One Technology to rule them all, One Technology to find them, One Technology to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of vendors where the Shadows lie. Happy New Year All.
  9. Rails? even with JRuby what have to do with Java?. Better lets say SpringMVC, Stripes, Struts2, Wicket, Tapestry. Have you take a look how it is Tapestry 5 or Wicket or Stripes 1.5 this days?, Are awesome frameworks, All this have to do with Java but not Rails. The Rails zealots continue to make the hype noise. Poor article, just Ruby zealots around.
  10. Rails? even with JRuby what have to do with Java?. Better lets say SpringMVC, Stripes, Struts2, Wicket, Tapestry. Have you take a look how it is Tapestry 5 or Wicket or Stripes 1.5 this days?, Are awesome frameworks, All this have to do with Java but not Rails. The Rails zealots continue to make the hype noise.

    Poor article, just Ruby zealots around.
    Of course Rails has got something to do with Java. Nowadays people are not only looking at Java as a language but also as a platform which is the JVM. Since we can run rails on JVM and Java appserver like Glassfish 3 and JBoss 5, it's worth considering. Can't you see how many Java developers are moving to Ruby and Rails these days? And that is why JRuby and the support for Rails on top of JBoss 5 and Glassfish 3 is made. As for SpringMVC, Stripes and Struts2 is what I called as the old-style web MVC action framework. The era for these frameworks is gone with the arrival of Rails and Grails as an action framework that supports far greater productivity. I've already mentioned about Tapestry 5 here and with Wicket here in 2008. I don't want to make it too biased by mentioning it over and over again. So let's move on to 2009. :-)
  11. This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    ROFL, Stripes and Struts2 old era, Really you dont know what you are talking about. Stripes and Struts2 also support Convention over configuration it is the principal of Rails and Rails also it is an MVC as Stripes or Struts2, So if you say Stripes is for the past era, it seems Rails is too my friend. So what is the future Component based?, maybe but take a look at asp.net mvc it is coming back to Microsoft shops MVC frameworks. Also I dont know any of all the Java developers moving to Ruby that is a lie. At most I know 2 folks that use Groovy as a complement for their Java development but Ruby nothing is just a hype, Still people dont realize that all was Hype of the past and you my friend still living in the past. As I said this is bad bad artcile, TSS really need an editor or something because everytime is getting worst. Now Ruby zealots have to write articles in Java forums to get more attention, ROFL, This never ends.
  12. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    ROFL, Stripes and Struts2 old era, Really you dont know what you are talking about. Stripes and Struts2 also support Convention over configuration it is the principal of Rails and Rails also it is an MVC as Stripes or Struts2, So if you say Stripes is for the past era, it seems Rails is too my friend. So what is the future Component based?, maybe but take a look at asp.net mvc it is coming back to Microsoft shops MVC frameworks.
    Stripes and Struts 2 is CoC if you written it by hand :-)) Rails & Grails is the new era for Action based framework dude. Long gone is the day for Stripes, Struts 2 and Spring MVC. Just face it.
    Also I dont know any of all the Java developers moving to Ruby that is a lie. At most I know 2 folks that use Groovy as a complement for their Java development but Ruby nothing is just a hype, Still people dont realize that all was Hype of the past and you my friend still living in the past.

    As I said this is bad bad artcile, TSS really need an editor or something because everytime is getting worst.

    Now Ruby zealots have to write articles in Java forums to get more attention, ROFL, This never ends.
    Perhaps you haven't been looking around at how many companies that are moving to Rails and Ruby. ;)
  13. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    Perhaps you haven't been looking around at how many companies that are moving to Rails and Ruby. ;)
    I have, but I haven't found many. I have looked into Grails and Rails quite a bit and imho they have a fundamental problem. While "Convention over Configuration" sounds good, the problem with this approach is that they make easy things very easy and mildly complex things (multiple datasources, multiple transactions, non standard interface behaviour...) very complex, whereas "traditional" action based frameworks make easy things easy and complex things possible. The more I work with CoC approaches this problem surfaces at some point. As an example consider how bizarrely complex it is to define proper client and server dependency or include remote component testing using Maven. You'll usually end up with multiple (mostly empty) projects for no other reason than bending to the build phases and the dependency management.
  14. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    Perhaps you haven't been looking around at how many companies that are moving to Rails and Ruby. ;)


    I have, but I haven't found many. I have looked into Grails and Rails quite a bit and imho they have a fundamental problem. While "Convention over Configuration" sounds good, the problem with this approach is that they make easy things very easy and mildly complex things (multiple datasources, multiple transactions, non standard interface behaviour...) very complex, whereas "traditional" action based frameworks make easy things easy and complex things possible.

    The more I work with CoC approaches this problem surfaces at some point. As an example consider how bizarrely complex it is to define proper client and server dependency or include remote component testing using Maven. You'll usually end up with multiple (mostly empty) projects for no other reason than bending to the build phases and the dependency management.
    This is a problem I have with things like Maven and Rails. Convention is good unless 1)It doesn't give you choice and 2) You need to deviate from the convention. I absolutely believe that there is a place for certain types of convention, but my team's needs may be better served and more efficient by following a convention we use in-house built on standardized or de-facto standard tools. The tools should serve you, not vice-versa.
  15. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    This is a problem I have with things like Maven and Rails. Convention is good unless 1)It doesn't give you choice and 2) You need to deviate from the convention.

    I absolutely believe that there is a place for certain types of convention, but my team's needs may be better served and more efficient by following a convention we use in-house built on standardized or de-facto standard tools.

    The tools should serve you, not vice-versa.
    I agree completely. A lot of people think I'm some sort of cowboy but when it comes down to it, I'd rather be guaranteed to have to do more work and be able to handle anything the world throws at me than take the easy road and be caught with my pants down when something unforeseen happens. 2008 seems like we are around the top of the 'quick-and-dirty' phase of the popular software approach pendulum. The good news is we'll soon be near the bottom and it will be a while before we are back into 'excruciatingly-explicit-in-triplicate' territory.
  16. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    2008 seems like we are around the top of the 'quick-and-dirty' phase of the popular software approach pendulum.
    This has been the draw Microsoft products for years. And the reason I usually choose Java over .Net
  17. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    2008 seems like we are around the top of the 'quick-and-dirty' phase of the popular software approach pendulum.
    This has been the draw Microsoft products for years. And the reason I usually choose Java over .Net
    The full spectrum of approaches is always available. What I mean here is where 'all the action is'. Smart people avoid this thrashing and try to stay somewhere between the extremes but the 'smart money' in the (Madoff investor sense) tends to follow these fads.
  18. Proliferation of frameworks[ Go to top ]

    Let me straddle this fence as firmly as possible: you're all right, and you're all wrong, depending on one's perspective. David is absolutely correct that we need innovation via inspiration, drawing on the best of other failed projects. We need early adopters - individuals who become excited about new frameworks and beat them to death to expose shortcomings, spurring refinements. Those individuals will not work in large enterprise shops, however. As one who works with a numerous enterprise clients, I can tell you that framework selection is not taken lightly, and once a framework is adopted it will typically remain in use long after we geeks deem it outdated. The reasons are many and sound, chief among them being extracting the most from their current investments and minimizing transition costs when new technologies are adopted. Bleeding edge stuff will be tried, if at all, on small pilot projects not on the crtical path. Two major shortcomings of most new technologies, especially open-source, are the woeful state of usage and reference documentation (often, only whatever javadocs are generated) and a lack of complete, concrete, real-world examples that can be installed and run out of the box. I believe what we need is a standard reference application specification that's simple to understand and implement but complex enough to touch on all the critical areas of enterprise concern, including configuration, security, maintainabiity and integration with other (emerging or established) frameworks. The application could be any of those we've seen many times, like the "library system", "hotel reservation system" or even the Java Pet Store, complete with a requiremets doc and use cases (perhaps even an EMF model). Framework developers would then submit their implementation, along with a document describing the specific problems their framework addresses, complementary frameworks used, and some rational for any implementation decisions made. Some standard metrics might be useful as well. Such a reference application would be a valuable resource to both technology managers, and to the staff members who have to sit in endless meetings justifying their framework recommendations.
  19. Re: Proliferation of frameworks[ Go to top ]

    Let me straddle this fence as firmly as possible: you're all right, and you're all wrong, depending on one's perspective. David is absolutely correct that we need innovation via inspiration, drawing on the best of other failed projects. We need early adopters - individuals who become excited about new frameworks and beat them to death to expose shortcomings, spurring refinements. Those individuals will not work in large enterprise shops, however.

    As one who works with a numerous enterprise clients, I can tell you that framework selection is not taken lightly, and once a framework is adopted it will typically remain in use long after we geeks deem it outdated. The reasons are many and sound, chief among them being extracting the most from their current investments and minimizing transition costs when new technologies are adopted.
    I generally agree with you fully but I would like to make a few points. First, on framework choice, I actually kind of disagree it's taken that seriously. Where I work now, I see a lot of frameworks solely being used because the latest consultancy (i.e. body shop) had developers familiar with the framework. Others have been chosen solely because we have already paid for them e.g. "it comes with RAD". And we have frameworks that are used solely because the person in charge of the project thought it was really shiny or because they thought it would be a good resume builder. I've seen random frameworks added because "we aren't a software company" which is a nice catch-phrase but really means nothing at all. Of course, not all shops are like this but my feeling from other jobs and from what others have told me, this is way more common that we as an industry would like to admit. Even when there's a strict process, it's often just a bit of theater to appease the bureaucracy. I'm probably going to appear to contradict myself here but that is a valid argument for why too many frameworks is a bad thing. But my opinion is that the fundamental cause of this is not valid: people in enterprise IT aren't doing their jobs. They ignore many of the issues you describe until they occur and then they blame abstract issues like "too many frameworks" or say things like "I can't predict the future" which is again a nonsensical kind of argument. Any time you change direction to go through a door and avoid running into a wall you "predict the future". Secondly, to your points about why frameworks tend last beyond their value, a lot of these problems come about because... people don't do their jobs. People talk about avoiding lock-in but people rarely do it. There's an implicit assumption that the framework is permanent but that's not often assumed when the framework is chosen. Sometimes a framework adds no value without requiring lock-in. That's a big reason not to choose the framework. Very few people care.
  20. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    2008 seems like we are around the top of the 'quick-and-dirty' phase of the popular software approach pendulum. The good news is we'll soon be near the bottom and it will be a while before we are back into 'excruciatingly-explicit-in-triplicate' territory.
    This is a very valid point. Having ventured into .NET for a while I couldn't agree more with Java approaches. It makes certain things tough but gives enough levers to get complete control over things. However, I still wish there were some consolidation in Java web frameworks so we can get more matured frameworks and more community efforts directed to fewer web frameworks to the benefit of everyone.
  21. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    2008 seems like we are around the top of the 'quick-and-dirty' phase of the popular software approach pendulum. The good news is we'll soon be near the bottom and it will be a while before we are back into 'excruciatingly-explicit-in-triplicate' territory.


    This is a very valid point. Having ventured into .NET for a while I couldn't agree more with Java approaches. It makes certain things tough but gives enough levers to get complete control over things.

    However, I still wish there were some consolidation in Java web frameworks so we can get more matured frameworks and more community efforts directed to fewer web frameworks to the benefit of everyone.
    I kind of see where you are coming from but I think that the number of frameworks will be reduced by attrition. I don't think pleading with people to contribute to projects that aren't designed well (a subjective assessment, of course) is going to achieve much. I do agree that there's a proliferation of projects that don't offer anything significant over existing ones but that's just how things go. It's not up to you me or anyone else to say which projects should exist. The community with vote with it's feet.
  22. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    2008 seems like we are around the top of the 'quick-and-dirty' phase of the popular software approach pendulum. The good news is we'll soon be near the bottom and it will be a while before we are back into 'excruciatingly-explicit-in-triplicate' territory.


    This is a very valid point. Having ventured into .NET for a while I couldn't agree more with Java approaches. It makes certain things tough but gives enough levers to get complete control over things.

    However, I still wish there were some consolidation in Java web frameworks so we can get more matured frameworks and more community efforts directed to fewer web frameworks to the benefit of everyone.


    I kind of see where you are coming from but I think that the number of frameworks will be reduced by attrition. I don't think pleading with people to contribute to projects that aren't designed well (a subjective assessment, of course) is going to achieve much. I do agree that there's a proliferation of projects that don't offer anything significant over existing ones but that's just how things go. It's not up to you me or anyone else to say which projects should exist. The community with vote with it's feet.
    I'm going to go one step further. I believe in the constant release of new frameworks. Why? None of us can say where inspiration will strike. One of the articles that fundamentally changed how I write software was an article years ago on Java Dynamic proxies, which led me to using Spring for its AOP support. Any of us could, perhaps, see a solution even in an unsuccessful framework. Besides, as James said, the let the market speak. Even Struts provided *needed* standardization at just the right time despite all the current talk of it being inferior. Nothing else at the time provided as much usefulness at the time. Being eclipsed by newer products with the benefit of hindsight doesn't, IMO, diminish Struts' contributions.
  23. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    So what is the future Component based?, maybe but take a look at asp.net mvc it is coming back to Microsoft shops MVC frameworks.

    Well, Senior and advanced MS developers aren't big fans of ASP.NET and the senior developers are very much looking forward to ASP.NET MVC. I think the agreement is HTTP is stateless and MVC frameworks do a better job at it than the component frameworks that pretend to think web is desktop. If people need very interactive web solutions we would do better with ore matured solutions like AIR, Flex and hopefully JavaFX will fill the gap there.
  24. Re: This article is pure BS[ Go to top ]

    +1 Im agree with you, But one really good component based framework that everybody should take a look because it does the right thing is Wicket. As for Action frameworks, Im agree is the best for HTTP because the stateless nature thing, Web frameworks as Stripes, Struts, ASP.NET MVC, Django, Rails so on are the way to go. For Java there are many good action frameworks. Also as you said for RIA, JavaFX is awesome and I think have a bright future and also OpenLazslo is a good bet is opensource and it have Flash and Ajax as backend rendering. But I have been in some projects that the architect does not allow to use a framework, we have to do everything by hand with JSP and Servlets. I think sometimes is the best thing to have 100% control of the project.
  25. not a zealot[ Go to top ]

    Not defending the article and I'm not a ruby zealot (more a novice) but isn't this the problem with Java? Too many frameworks.
  26. Re: not a zealot[ Go to top ]

    Not defending the article and I'm not a ruby zealot (more a novice) but isn't this the problem with Java? Too many frameworks.
    It is a problem with "web applications"
  27. Re: not a zealot[ Go to top ]

    Not defending the article and I'm not a ruby zealot (more a novice) but isn't this the problem with Java? Too many frameworks.
    I agree that is a problem.. But have you looked at the number of plugins in rails? getting just as bad.. And Rails isn't the only framework for Ruby.. There's a growing number there too..
  28. Re: not a zealot[ Go to top ]

    Not defending the article and I'm not a ruby zealot (more a novice) but isn't this the problem with Java? Too many frameworks.

    I agree that is a problem.. But have you looked at the number of plugins in rails? getting just as bad.. And Rails isn't the only framework for Ruby.. There's a growing number there too..
    I honestly don't understand this thinking. One framework cannot solve all problems. Surely you guys don't wish for 1 type of car 1 type of house 1 type of food 1 type of medicine. Fewer options doesn't necessarily mean better. Microsoft has one dev tool - Visual Studio. It simply isn't the best option. It is the ONLY option. Only through choice can industry thrive.
  29. Re: not a zealot[ Go to top ]

    You cannot compare frameworks to cars or food! People who invest time and effort in the less popular frameworks do so I think hoping to gain the pionneer advantage, those who jumped on the Ruby band-wagon first, succeed to make a name for themselves and make money from this, would you have ever heard of Obie Fernandez otherwise! I think the same could be true for those who develop in wicket, stripes and even Grails as opposed to Spring MVC or SEAM. If Grails becomes big, and your portfolio have several project built in it, you will be there on the forefront first, which is an advantageous place to be. Some people like and want to be on the forefront of the next big thing. The risk, is understood, your next-big-thing may end up, being a never-was or a has-been! Those who don't care about that can always use JEE or Spring. It not like that it is not obvious which frameworks are more popular and which ones are not. High popularity: JEE , Spring. Medium popularity: Grails, Struts2, Tapestry Low Popularity: Stripes Obsolete: Rife
  30. Re: not a zealot[ Go to top ]

    You cannot compare frameworks to cars or food!

    People who invest time and effort in the less popular frameworks do so I think hoping to gain the pionneer advantage, those who jumped on the Ruby band-wagon first, succeed to make a name for themselves and make money from this, would you have ever heard of Obie Fernandez otherwise!

    I think the same could be true for those who develop in wicket, stripes and even Grails as opposed to Spring MVC or SEAM.

    If Grails becomes big, and your portfolio have several project built in it, you will be there on the forefront first, which is an advantageous place to be.

    Some people like and want to be on the forefront of the next big thing.

    The risk, is understood, your next-big-thing may end up, being a never-was or a has-been!

    Those who don't care about that can always use JEE or Spring. It not like that it is not obvious which frameworks are more popular and which ones are not.

    High popularity: JEE , Spring.
    Medium popularity: Grails, Struts2, Tapestry
    Low Popularity: Stripes
    Obsolete: Rife
    "Want to be on the forefront of the next big thing?" Like the people who purchase the newest cars? Or MP3 players? Or coffee(Starbucks anyone?) I respectfully disagree. The promise of the car is increased efficiency. Nothing more. I can get from A to B faster where (A,B) is a function of distance. Replace distance with software development. Everything else is just features to attract the buyer, what in the software world is bloat- Who needs satellite radio and power windows. Heck, I can get from A to B using the latest, greatest, fastest, with cool features, better efficiency, and excellent safety. Am I talking about code or cars? Ditto with food. What are prepared foods *but* the culinary equivalent of the framework? Do less work to perform you task, in this case eating instead of coding. Except, if you are the software equivalent of a vegetarian, you'd better look elsewhere, eh? Yet, everywhere else, this choice is seem as a *good thing*. Why? Because people intuitively understand that a single option doesn't work for everyone. However, this common sense thinking, for some, stops at the software development world where some believe that a single approach is superior. It isn't an probably never will be because software development is simply too broad. Even within web app development. Necessity is the mother of invention and the impetus for the creation of these many frameworks. Someone, somewhere felt that the current crop of tools were not sufficient. Just because you(generic you), don't agree, doesn't mean that their views are invalid. In NO other industry do individuals call for *FEWER* choices.
  31. choice[ Go to top ]

    I remember an biz guy a few years telling me about choice. When a consumer goes into a store and sees a few choices, it's pretty easy to make a decision on which product to buy. When they are overwhelmed by choice they are less likely to make a decision and more likely to walk away. So for a retailer it's best to find the right balance, not too much choice or too little. Depends on the product type of course, but for a complex product choice can sometimes be a bad/overwhelming thing. And in the java world, it's pretty overwhelming. It's pretty simplistic to say "choice is good, more the better." People don't have the man years available to evaluate every framework to pick the right one. Also there are so many frameworks that the good ones don't get refined as much as they should. Nothing in the Java world that I'm aware of is as nice as Ruby on Rails. You download rails and you are ready to go. In Java you piece together a whole slew of different technologies. You spend all your time building, hooking up infrastructure instead of solving your business problem.
  32. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    I remember an biz guy a few years telling me about choice. When a consumer goes into a store and sees a few choices, it's pretty easy to make a decision on which product to buy. When they are overwhelmed by choice they are less likely to make a decision and more likely to walk away. So for a retailer it's best to find the right balance, not too much choice or too little.
    That's a little different. Most people are like sheep. Retail is about getting your money out of the customers pocket. What we are talking about here is more like bolts and screws.
    Depends on the product type of course, but for a complex product choice can sometimes be a bad/overwhelming thing.

    And in the java world, it's pretty overwhelming.
    Sure. But then pick a few mainstream things and let the cutting edge people hash it out.
    It's pretty simplistic to say "choice is good, more the better." People don't have the man years available to evaluate every framework to pick the right one.
    True. See above.
    Nothing in the Java world that I'm aware of is as nice as Ruby on Rails. You download rails and you are ready to go.
    Probably because it was mean to solve simple problems. Many people in the Java world have had to take a project with original simple needs and grow it. Having it built with things like Hibernate and Spring make it tons easier when the time comes - and it usual does.
  33. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    I remember an biz guy a few years telling me about choice. When a consumer goes into a store and sees a few choices, it's pretty easy to make a decision on which product to buy. When they are overwhelmed by choice they are less likely to make a decision and more likely to walk away. So for a retailer it's best to find the right balance, not too much choice or too little.

    Depends on the product type of course, but for a complex product choice can sometimes be a bad/overwhelming thing.

    And in the java world, it's pretty overwhelming.
    The flaw in that argument is that people choosing frameoworks are, in theory, professionals. I'm not a professional tooth-paste or beer selector (although I still manage to do that, no matter how many choices there are.) It is my job to evaluate choices of frameworks and pick the best option. If your company doesn't want to employ people with these abilities, then, by all means, they should go with the 'software of the month club': Microsoft.
    It's pretty simplistic to say "choice is good, more the better." People don't have the man years available to evaluate every framework to pick the right one.

    Also there are so many frameworks that the good ones don't get refined as much as they should. Nothing in the Java world that I'm aware of is as nice as Ruby on Rails. You download rails and you are ready to go. In Java you piece together a whole slew of different technologies. You spend all your time building, hooking up infrastructure instead of solving your business problem.
    Things like Rails are great for simple stuff. The problem is that when things get more complex, you lose the gains in productivity and more. Often this doesn't happen until you are inextricably tied to the tool.
  34. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    "The flaw in that argument is that people choosing frameoworks are, in theory, professionals. I'm not a professional tooth-paste or beer selector (although I still manage to do that, no matter how many choices there are.) It is my job to evaluate choices of frameworks and pick the best option. If your company doesn't want to employ people with these abilities, then, by all means, they should go with the 'software of the month club': Microsoft." All I was saying is that there is a trade-off to having a lot of choices. You deny any trade-off? "Things like Rails are great for simple stuff. The problem is that when things get more complex, you lose the gains in productivity and more. Often this doesn't happen until you are inextricably tied to the tool." I completely disagree. But enjoy your struts or JSF or whatever your over-architected framework of choice may be :)
  35. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    "The flaw in that argument is that people choosing frameoworks are, in theory, professionals. I'm not a professional tooth-paste or beer selector (although I still manage to do that, no matter how many choices there are.)

    It is my job to evaluate choices of frameworks and pick the best option. If your company doesn't want to employ people with these abilities, then, by all means, they should go with the 'software of the month club': Microsoft."

    All I was saying is that there is a trade-off to having a lot of choices. You deny any trade-off?

    "Things like Rails are great for simple stuff. The problem is that when things get more complex, you lose the gains in productivity and more. Often this doesn't happen until you are inextricably tied to the tool."

    I completely disagree. But enjoy your struts or JSF or whatever your over-architected framework of choice may be :)
    See, there you go. "I don't agree with you, thus you are in the wrong." Well, I've gotten work having to clean up those simple choices. I look forward to my future Rails to Java port! :-)
  36. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    I completely disagree. But enjoy your struts or JSF or whatever your over-architected framework of choice may be :)
    You got me. My experience is completely trumped by your unassailable logic. Personally, I like Wicket but web sites aren't something I worry too much about. I think of frameworks in a much more general sense. There's a lot more to technology than websites.
  37. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    I remember an biz guy a few years telling me about choice. When a consumer goes into a store and sees a few choices, it's pretty easy to make a decision on which product to buy. When they are overwhelmed by choice they are less likely to make a decision and more likely to walk away. So for a retailer it's best to find the right balance, not too much choice or too little.

    Depends on the product type of course, but for a complex product choice can sometimes be a bad/overwhelming thing.

    And in the java world, it's pretty overwhelming. It's pretty simplistic to say "choice is good, more the better." People don't have the man years available to evaluate every framework to pick the right one.

    Also there are so many frameworks that the good ones don't get refined as much as they should. Nothing in the Java world that I'm aware of is as nice as Ruby on Rails. You download rails and you are ready to go. In Java you piece together a whole slew of different technologies. You spend all your time building, hooking up infrastructure instead of solving your business problem.
    It is overwhelming *to you*. That's find. Say "I find it overwhelming." I don't find it overwhelming. In addition, what you find nice about Rails, I find constraining. Perhaps I don't want to do it Rails' way. Perhaps I want to do it my way because I understand my problems. If *you* spent all of your time not solving your problems, then I'm happy you found a tool that worked for you via the choice you are so quick to denigrate. But somehow, I've been managing to "muddle" my way through, and somehow trick management, developer, and customer alike that they were using software that solved their problem and not just infrastructure. Why is it simplistic to want options but not simplistic to say "it's pretty overwhelming."? And which good ones don't get refined? How? Perhaps it is you...
  38. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    "It is overwhelming *to you*. That's find. Say "I find it overwhelming." I don't find it overwhelming. In addition, what you find nice about Rails, I find constraining. Perhaps I don't want to do it Rails' way. Perhaps I want to do it my way because I understand my problems." All I did was point out a principle observed in economics about choices. There have been times that I have been overwhelmed, but not any more. These days I just go with mainstream choices, or those already made for me by my employer. I have found it's not worth the effort to find the *best* choice as it takes way too long. Make a low risk choice and go with it.... At some point you have to produce and picking frameworks can kill immense amounts of time. If were just starting out, I think I'd definitely get lost in the overwhelming choices in Java. But that all being said, there is a lot of choice and that's not going to go away. What we need are better filters to help people evaluate these choices. You haven't made a single specific point - only vague general claims - about Rails so I didn't see anything to refute.
  39. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    If were just starting out, I think I'd definitely get lost in the overwhelming choices in Java.
    People who are "just starting out" shouldn't be making decision like what frameworks or languages to use. And that's the problem with IT in general, there's this idea that having actual real skills is not a requirement. I see this lowest common denominator thinking all the time: "Don't do that, It's a great idea and addresses our needs in the short term and long term but the brainless turds we want to employ won't understand it. Do something obvious and sheep-like instead." Then when things don't work out with the naive solution: "no one could have predicted that problem." I'm so f'ing sick of the tyranny of the lazy and ignorant. It's all a bunch of BS. Anyone who can do adequate work with RoR or any other narrow tool has the skills required to be a full-fledged real professional developer. Low expectations are the root of a lot of problems.
  40. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    If were just starting out, I think I'd definitely get lost in the overwhelming choices in Java.


    People who are "just starting out" shouldn't be making decision like what frameworks or languages to use. And that's the problem with IT in general, there's this idea that having actual real skills is not a requirement.

    I see this lowest common denominator thinking all the time: "Don't do that, It's a great idea and addresses our needs in the short term and long term but the brainless turds we want to employ won't understand it. Do something obvious and sheep-like instead." Then when things don't work out with the naive solution: "no one could have predicted that problem." I'm so f'ing sick of the tyranny of the lazy and ignorant. It's all a bunch of BS. Anyone who can do adequate work with RoR or any other narrow tool has the skills required to be a full-fledged real professional developer. Low expectations are the root of a lot of problems.
    James, I could not have said it better! If you cannot make the decision, call yourself a junior and asked a senior guy who *CAN*. I want that responsibility and don't shy from it. What the person starting out should do is learn from the more experienced members like the senior guys are team leads. These are the guy who know(or should know) how to cut through the noise perform this filtering and now allow the project to fail because of supposedly easy, but inappropriate technology.
  41. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    One other thought.... I'm on The Server Side, so I clearly am not an anti-java zealot. I just am frustrated when I see better solutions on other platforms that aren't available in the Java world. Java should learn from Ruby. And vice versa. On the Ruby side I find it ridiculous that the solution to performance is to drop to C code. Yuck. I'd much rather write Java than C for many obvious reasons (if you are reading TSS I'm guessing you agree with that). The runtime situation for Ruby is a disaster but anti-java zealotry keeps most of the Ruby community away from the clear solution: JRuby. On the Java side I find it insane that we still use primitive tools like ant to do builds. Rake on Ruby is infinitely better (real language vs xml hell). There still isn't a decent database migration framework for Java. The language is evolving at a snails pace (why in 2008 do I still care about primitives and not have closures)?
  42. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    "why in 2008..." Opps! 2009. See? It's even worse than I make it out to be.
  43. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    There are too many choices. Java web frameworks are like Linux distros - a dime a dozen. But alas it's not such a bad thing because the market naturally separates the wheat from the chafe. In the Linux world, it's kind of narrowed down to RH, SUSE, and Ubuntu, with a handful of others to lesser degree. In the Java world, it's JSF (the standard), and then Wicket, Tapestry, Grails, and a handful of others that duke it out, and of course Struts as legacy. But no doubt, any project can get overwhelmed in the evaluation process. It can become like the centipede that becomes crippled because it can't decide which leg to move first. Personally, I'm attracted to standards so long as they're "good enough", because they offer competing implementations (proprietary and open source), they are portable (mostly), offer a strong ecosystem, they offer lots of good tooling, and usually it's easy to find developers competetent with them. As for Ruby on Rails - for me it's JRuby all the way. Apart trom that, I would never rely on an interpreter that has known, and major, speed and memory leakage issues. Ruby 1.9 is supposed to solve all that, but it's not due for full release until late Feburary. That's 2009, and they're finally getting around to solving major speed and memory leagage problems? But with JRuby, you get the best of all worlds - Rails rapid, easy development, on top of the JVM, aruguably the best, most advanced, fastest, VM out there. And you get all the Java libraries, and you get integration with JEE and other Java stuff.
  44. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    there is many option for the choice,,if you are confuse to choose,why you not make your own technology???but it must better than technology before.but if you can't,just choose one framework which you familiar with it,it's make you easy to use and customize it. And also we must know basically that technology,where is came from?,and why they make it?that reasons make us more understanding how more we can improve it,use it, customize it and mix it with another technology
  45. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    One other thought.... I'm on The Server Side, so I clearly am not an anti-java zealot. I just am frustrated when I see better solutions on other platforms that aren't available in the Java world.

    Java should learn from Ruby. And vice versa. On the Ruby side I find it ridiculous that the solution to performance is to drop to C code. Yuck. I'd much rather write Java than C for many obvious reasons (if you are reading TSS I'm guessing you agree with that). The runtime situation for Ruby is a disaster but anti-java zealotry keeps most of the Ruby community away from the clear solution: JRuby.

    On the Java side I find it insane that we still use primitive tools like ant to do builds. Rake on Ruby is infinitely better (real language vs xml hell). There still isn't a decent database migration framework for Java. The language is evolving at a snails pace (why in 2008 do I still care about primitives and not have closures)?
    You won't gt any arguments from me on these points. I'm more of a Python guy but to your point Java isn't the answer to anything and it's got some major warts that aren't going anywhere. But really the option to run Ruby on Rails on JRuby is yet another choice. It's not reducing choices. My personal feeling is that arguing against the proliferation of frameworks is like trying to punch back the tide. It's not going to make any difference. I think it's better to question the value or quality of particular frameworks making it easier for people to avoid the chaff. I just don't have much tolerance for people who question people just because they go and try something different. Bang on what they produce. Question how it's different or improves significantly on existing tools. Be a prick about it. But I'll always defend people for trying even if they don't produce anything good.
  46. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    "It is overwhelming *to you*. That's find. Say "I find it overwhelming."

    I don't find it overwhelming. In addition, what you find nice about Rails, I find constraining. Perhaps I don't want to do it Rails' way. Perhaps I want to do it my way because I understand my problems."

    All I did was point out a principle observed in economics about choices. There have been times that I have been overwhelmed, but not any more. These days I just go with mainstream choices, or those already made for me by my employer. I have found it's not worth the effort to find the *best* choice as it takes way too long. Make a low risk choice and go with it.... At some point you have to produce and picking frameworks can kill immense amounts of time.

    If were just starting out, I think I'd definitely get lost in the overwhelming choices in Java.

    But that all being said, there is a lot of choice and that's not going to go away. What we need are better filters to help people evaluate these choices.

    You haven't made a single specific point - only vague general claims - about Rails so I didn't see anything to refute.
    I'm different. I don't generally go with the mainstream. However, I've had a good track record of my choices *becoming* mainstream, so I trust my ability to filter. My filtering is based on my instincts and my research and guess what? I enjoy doing this. To me, its part of the job and part of the appeal, to learn something new and apply it to real world problems. It is all under the umbrella of why I do this. My worst nightmare is to be told that I *have* to use something that I'm not convinced is appropriate. As for refutation, I don't believe I asked you to support anything...
  47. Re: choice[ Go to top ]

    I'm different. I don't generally go with the mainstream. However, I've had a good track record of my choices *becoming* mainstream, so I trust my ability to filter. My filtering is based on my instincts and my research and guess what?

    I enjoy doing this. To me, its part of the job and part of the appeal, to learn something new and apply it to real world problems. It is all under the umbrella of why I do this. My worst nightmare is to be told that I *have* to use something that I'm not convinced is appropriate.
    Exactly the way I am.
  48. Re: not a zealot[ Go to top ]

    I honestly don't understand this thinking. One framework cannot solve all problems. Surely you guys don't wish for
    1 type of car
    1 type of house
    1 type of food
    1 type of medicine.
    I never said One.. My issue is that there are way too many to sustain the usefulness of them all.. I'm mostly concerned with all the new frameworks/plugins/projects that spring up with 1 or 2 slightly different things then the one they are "replacing".. None of them become great frameworks/plugins/projects because there are way too many. And for the record.. I think fewer car choices would be a good thing.. :-)
  49. Re: not a zealot[ Go to top ]

    I honestly don't understand this thinking. One framework cannot solve all problems. Surely you guys don't wish for
    1 type of car
    1 type of house
    1 type of food
    1 type of medicine.


    I never said One.. My issue is that there are way too many to sustain the usefulness of them all.. I'm mostly concerned with all the new frameworks/plugins/projects that spring up with 1 or 2 slightly different things then the one they are "replacing".. None of them become great frameworks/plugins/projects because there are way too many.

    And for the record.. I think fewer car choices would be a good thing.. :-)
    But see the problem? How many is too many? What you think, what I think, and what someone else things are 3 different numbers? For that matter, what is "great"? We've got people where saying that Rails is a great framework? What about those who disagree? Who's right? The one who found Rails useful or the one who found it constraining?
  50. I'd love to see iBatis 3.0 coming, but the linked wiki page was last updated in April 2008. Haven't heard about JSecurity (and can't seen much progess on the incubator page either). JavaFX, hmmm, really? Sorry to be blunt, but I don't know what to think about these new years resolutions.
  51. I'd love to see iBatis 3.0 coming, but the linked wiki page was last updated in April 2008. Haven't heard about JSecurity (and can't seen much progess on the incubator page either). JavaFX, hmmm, really?

    Sorry to be blunt, but I don't know what to think about these new years resolutions.
    Hi Stefan. If you want to see JSecurity it already has a release here. Some people are already using it and it's already made as a security plugin for Grails. As for iBatis 3.0 it's still under development like any other framework in the first half of the list I've written.
  52. Rails promising and Flex[ Go to top ]

    I think Flex on front end and ROR on backend should gain more market share. JavaFX yes you should avoid and one who says after looking at Flex you will realize how pathetic is SUN in doing something different.
  53. Hi something realted to java plz[ Go to top ]

    I really hoped that serverside will publish something related to Java and Java Related Technologies(JDK, eclipse, Spring...) which currently ruling the market. Its not only Sun who we look out for but many other open source organizations(like Apache, CodeHouse, SpringSource). we are in hope to get some wonderful technologies Please someone give some update regarding Java technologies rather than marketing about flex, ruby, rails, grails.....etc which i feel less than 1% or software community uses in Enterprise Level Projects Regards, Martin
  54. I really hoped that serverside will publish something related to Java and Java Related Technologies(JDK, eclipse, Spring...) which currently ruling the market. Its not only Sun who we look out for but many other open source organizations(like Apache, CodeHouse, SpringSource). we are in hope to get some wonderful technologies

    Please someone give some update regarding Java technologies rather than marketing about flex, ruby, rails, grails.....etc which i feel less than 1% or software community uses in Enterprise Level Projects

    Regards,
    Martin
    You make a good point...TSS should focus more on mainstream technologies used in enterprises like Spring & Hibernate. TSS slogan is "You Enterprise Java Community" and I hope they do more about it.
  55. I really hoped that serverside will publish something related to Java and Java Related Technologies(JDK, eclipse, Spring...) which currently ruling the market. Its not only Sun who we look out for but many other open source organizations(like Apache, CodeHouse, SpringSource). we are in hope to get some wonderful technologies

    Please someone give some update regarding Java technologies rather than marketing about flex, ruby, rails, grails.....etc which i feel less than 1% or software community uses in Enterprise Level Projects

    Regards,
    Martin
    1% ? Where did you get that number from?
  56. Re: Hi something realted to java plz[ Go to top ]

    I really hoped that serverside will publish something related to Java and Java Related Technologies(JDK, eclipse, Spring...) which currently ruling the market. Its not only Sun who we look out for but many other open source organizations(like Apache, CodeHouse, SpringSource). we are in hope to get some wonderful technologies

    Please someone give some update regarding Java technologies rather than marketing about flex, ruby, rails, grails.....etc which i feel less than 1% or software community uses in Enterprise Level Projects

    Regards,
    Martin

    1% ? Where did you get that number from?
    Yeah. Sounds way too high. I just did a poll and it was 0%. :)
  57. Buildr contender of Ivy ??[ Go to top ]

    Not many people recognize Buildr, but as a matter of fact it’s one of a great solution for building your project. Another contender would be Ivy that is build on top of Ant.
    Ivy is just a dependency manager. How It can compete ?! Please make the comparaison with a true build system like Maven, Ant, Gradle...
  58. Re: Buildr contender of Ivy ??[ Go to top ]

    Why a Java build system uses and/or requires the knowledge another language than Java (Groovy for Gradle or Ruby for Buildr) ?? I have begun EL4Ant because of jelly used in Maven 1. With only Java, Ant and Ivy, everything is possible and easy for any Java developper: http://el4ant.sourceforge.net/
  59. Hilarious to say the least[ Go to top ]

    A good April Fool arrived too early.
  60. JavaFx is the future.[ Go to top ]

    JRuby is certainly not the future... thats a big lie. JavaFX is ! Yes it is not there yet, but we are talking of future here!! Flex/SilverLight are already proving how useful they are... If Java can sit in the front-end and back-end - you have it very good!
  61. If any of this matters at all, it's incremental improvement. I see nothing here that is interesting from an enterprise perspective. Constantly adopting new tools and approaches that don't have any real impact is just churn and gives developers a bad name. It's wasting money and getting nowhere.
  62. +1 for BS[ Go to top ]

    This is not a well-conceived article. Rather, it sounds like the author picked the last 10 things they read about on other blogs and threw them into a list. The mere fact that he has Rails at #1 and JRuby at #10 shows how disjointed the article is. All of this talk about Rails / Grails and the bashing of Flex, Silverlight or JavaFX is missing the point. The simple truth is that users want a good user interface. How many times have you went to a site, clicked on something and sighed as you realized the browser was going full round-trip to the server while doing something trivial like rating a movie or voting up a story? Users are coming to expect a lot more than that and their expectations will only increase. Using tools purposed to build a rich UI (be it GWT, Flex, Silverlight, JavaFX, etc) are trying to solve a problem that is actually important to users. It's possible to build a rich UI using action-based MVC frameworks but the component-based frameworks were built with a rich UI in mind. Which tool do you think will get the job done best? The goal should not be to build mediocre software faster; it should be build great software more easily.
  63. Re: +1 for BS[ Go to top ]

    +1
  64. Re: +1 for BS[ Go to top ]

    The goal should not be to build mediocre software faster; it should be build great software more easily.
    I know you're right, you know you're right, but unfortunately we're both technologists and, to Marketing & Sales, the first part of your statement is far more valuable. Kit
  65. There seems to be a fair bit of JavaFX love in this thread, so let me ask a somewhat loaded question... What does JavaFX have that applets didn't? Clearly no one would say applets were a success story by any measure, yet here comes JavaFX which, at least at first glance, looks like applets redux. So, what's different, and why will JavaFX succeed where applets failed?
  66. What does JavaFX have that applets didn't?
    A static typed javascript :-)
  67. What does JavaFX have that applets didn't?
    java 1.6.10+ webstart drag from browser JavaFX script
  68. Re: 10 Java Technology Resolution for 2009[ Go to top ]

    java 1.6.10+
    applet runs on 1.6.10+ too.
    webstart
    Can this innovation be applied to applet too?
    drag from browser
    What is this? please forgive my ignorance.
    JavaFX script
    Yes, we love DSL.
  69. Re: 10 Java Technology Resolution for 2009[ Go to top ]

    java 1.6.10+

    applet runs on 1.6.10+ too.

    webstart

    Can this innovation be applied to applet too?

    drag from browser

    What is this? please forgive my ignorance.

    JavaFX script

    Yes, we love DSL.
    George I knew i should have added "I assume you mean when applets 'failed'". Things have greatly changed since then. Another thing that has changed is that many have finally come to the realization that web UIs (HTML+) are not all they were cracked up to be. As for "drag from browser" - spend a few seconds reading about JavaFx. But to your point, JavaFx can run as an applet too. So it is more than just "applets" and thus really can't be compared.
  70. Goodbye TheServerSide[ Go to top ]

    Well that's it for me. I used to check this site to read about Java technology, it seems that this is not possible anymore so no point in coming back. Farewell.