WEB4J Is Now Free

Discussions

News: WEB4J Is Now Free

  1. WEB4J Is Now Free (21 messages)

    The WEB4J web framework for Java is now free for download. Other updates: - The Tutorial and User Guide have been improved, and now use a more "brain friendly" style. - A Google Groups wiki/mailing list has also been created recently. - The website has improved its look. I hope you enjoy using it. Any suggestions for improvement appreciated.

    Threaded Messages (21)

  2. Free closed source is the worst[ Go to top ]

    Free, closed source is the worst way to acquire software. Open Source software lets you support yourself if you need to. Paid, closed source software gives the vendor a reason to provide support (but of course, doesn't guarantee support). Free, close source software gives the vendor no reason at all to support you and you are unable to support yourself when it is needed. Anyone in the right mind would pass on this.
  3. +1
  4. Re: support[ Go to top ]

    WEB4J Users have been supported well since the tool has existed. Try it. You might like it.
  5. Support?[ Go to top ]

    "Receiving payment makes me deeply interested in making you happy." http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=49372#252599 Make it open source and I'll look at it.
  6. Re: Support[ Go to top ]

    Maybe someday. Not right now, though.
  7. Re: Support[ Go to top ]

    Maybe someday. Not right now, though.
    Just curious - why not, if it's free?
  8. Re: support[ Go to top ]

    Because I love working on WEB4J, and I want to work on it full time, all the time. And I can't do that without any revenue. I need to pay my landlord. He gets cranky if I don't give him any rent...
  9. Re:support[ Go to top ]

    Clarification: source code licenses are being offered for sale. That is the ostensible revenue model. The problem is essentially this : WEB4J = (-1) X Spring Spring is humugous and complex. They charge ~$2,000 for a week of training, and God knows how much for support fees. WEB4J is at the complete opposite end of the complexity spectrum. There are 86 classes in its published API - not 2,000. In addition, WEB4J has excellent, up to date documentation. This means that selling support licenses for WEB4J seems dubious. The tool is simple and clear - why would users pay for support? Would they really need it? Anyway, I am always considering the possibility of open sourcing the tool...
  10. Re:support[ Go to top ]

    Clarification: source code licenses are being offered for sale. That is the ostensible revenue model.

    The problem is essentially this :

    WEB4J = (-1) X Spring

    Spring is humugous and complex. They charge ~$2,000 for a week of training, and God knows how much for support fees.

    WEB4J is at the complete opposite end of the complexity spectrum. There are 86 classes in its published API - not 2,000.

    In addition, WEB4J has excellent, up to date documentation.

    This means that selling support licenses for WEB4J seems dubious. The tool is simple and clear - why would users pay for support? Would they really need it?

    Anyway, I am always considering the possibility of open sourcing the tool...
    I don't remember that much amount for Spring if I remember well.
  11. Re:support[ Go to top ]

    The problem is essentially this :

    WEB4J = (-1) X Spring

    Spring is humugous and complex. They charge ~$2,000 for a week of training, and God knows how much for support fees.

    WEB4J is at the complete opposite end of the complexity spectrum. There are 86 classes in its published API - not 2,000.

    In addition, WEB4J has excellent, up to date documentation.

    This means that selling support licenses for WEB4J seems dubious. The tool is simple and clear - why would users pay for support? Would they really need it?

    Anyway, I am always considering the possibility of open sourcing the tool...
    Glad to hear that you are keeping an open mind. Why are you choosing Spring as the framework to bash here? Sure, Spring is huge, but that's because it solves many more problems: integration with ORM, messaging, web services, dependency injection, AOP, and more. Plus, it's very modular, so you can start small, use only one part, and use more parts as needed. I've never been one to learn much from taking courses or attending seminars - I'm most effective by reading. So $40 for a book is fine for me to learn Spring. The book pays for itself manyfold from the revenue I get from using Spring in the workplace. Anyway, I'm not out to argue about Spring. I just think there are other frameworks you could choose to bash, because Spring is IMHO one of the least "evil" of the "enterprise" frameworks. May I suggest JSF instead? Plenty of material there for you. :) I'm absolutely certain that a WEB4J vs JSF comparison would make WEB4J a clear winner. Keep up the good work. Java web frameworks should be as simple as possible and you seem to be headed in that direction, so that can only be good. Cheers, Freddy Author of the Stripes book
  12. Re: support[ Go to top ]

    I wasn't trying to bash Spring in particular. I was just trying to point out that since web4j is so simple and small in comparison to other tools (Spring being an example of one such tool) that it's difficult to see how training/support could be a viable source of revenue...that's all.
  13. Thanks[ Go to top ]

    +1 I appreciate the transparency about your intentions, John. I'm glad you can make a living doing what you enjoy. I think Spring will do just fine regardless of your existence, as shown by its adamant defenders on this thread ;) I'd like to see this open source. At the same time, this is an appreciated move forward; your business model is your choice. Rock-on
  14. Re: support[ Go to top ]

    I wasn't trying to bash Spring in particular.

    I was just trying to point out that since web4j is so simple and small in comparison to other tools (Spring being an example of one such tool) that it's difficult to see how training/support could be a viable source of revenue...that's all.
    I apologize for misunderstanding your intentions. You make a good point. Best wishes, Fred
  15. Re: support[ Go to top ]

    I wasn't trying to bash Spring in particular.

    I was just trying to point out that since web4j is so simple and small in comparison to other tools (Spring being an example of one such tool) that it's difficult to see how training/support could be a viable source of revenue...that's all.
    Have you considered making web4j MORE complex? ;-) BTW, I'm already sick of captcha. Can't we just hunt down the spammers?
  16. Congrats for releasing the code[ Go to top ]

    I've checked today and here you have it. The source is released under BSD. Thank you.
  17. Now Open Source[ Go to top ]

    That's correct. WEB4J has been released as open source under the BSD license.
  18. Re:support[ Go to top ]

    Clarification: source code licenses are being offered for sale. That is the ostensible revenue model.

    The problem is essentially this :

    WEB4J = (-1) X Spring

    Spring is humugous and complex. They charge ~$2,000 for a week of training, and God knows how much for support fees.

    WEB4J is at the complete opposite end of the complexity spectrum. There are 86 classes in its published API - not 2,000.

    In addition, WEB4J has excellent, up to date documentation.

    This means that selling support licenses for WEB4J seems dubious. The tool is simple and clear - why would users pay for support? Would they really need it?

    Anyway, I am always considering the possibility of open sourcing the tool...
    First, Spring is and always has been free. Second, they provide the source. Third, it is ubiquitous enough to have a variety of sources for information, most of which don't require you to pay anywhere near that much. You can get a book for what? $50? And I've never paid anything for support. Web4j does far less, isn't as well accepted, isn't as well supported, and doesn't offer the source. Oh, and is backed by ONE guy. Why bring up Spring? Web4j is the negative Spring because it does far, FAR less.
  19. Re: Free closed source is the worst[ Go to top ]

    Free, closed source is the worst way to acquire software.
    That's why one should entirely avoid the word 'free'. Speak of 'Freeware', 'Shareware', GPL-licensed, BSD-licensed, Apache-licensed Software but not of meaningless 'free' Software.
  20. Re: Free closed source is the worst[ Go to top ]

    Free, closed source is the worst way to acquire software.


    That's why one should entirely avoid the word 'free'. Speak of 'Freeware', 'Shareware', GPL-licensed, BSD-licensed, Apache-licensed Software but not of meaningless 'free' Software.
    Sorry the word free confuses you. If I don't pay money to the vendor for closed source software, the vendor has no incentive at all to support me. Less confused now? Do you think software provided at no cost with no source code is something you would deploy your production applications on? The source code for this is available for sale. The price isn't listed anywhere. When that happens, it is because the vendor is scared that people will be shocked with the price. Why pay for something when there are 100 open source alternatives out there?
  21. Better open fully[ Go to top ]

    John O'Hanley, I congratulate you for your effort. I looked over your project long ago when it first appeared. Needless to say, I could not even read the first page when I learned we had to pay. I don't ask for things for free. Go ahead and build your business as you please. If you want my attention however, go open all the way. Give us the source. I saw some interesting things in your code already, such as keeping track of query parameters for security reasons. I saw some bad once too, such as the limitations of the form tag. Look into the WaveMaker business model. These guys kept the authentication / authorization module for the "pro", paid version. The rest is for all to have. When everyone is closing doors or aching, these guys are booming. Have your core out. Sell the 'enterprise' features. But make sure they are enterprise indeed. Such as clustering or distributed data sources (which you don't mention now). Join the Apache Click framework. They share the same philosophy of keeping things simple (as I do). I would love to support you.
  22. RE: Better open fully[ Go to top ]

    Thanks for your encouragement! I will think of something...