Editor’s Note: This is contributed content, and doesn’t always reflect TSS’ neutrality in such matters. TSS is made up of human editors, of course, and as such, we have biases, but we’d not express them quite this way, nor are we willing to say exactly what those biases are – and no, they’re not often what you might suspect. Let’s leave it at “each framework has its strengths and weaknesses, and each is appropriate for various uses. Thus, we’d be unwilling to stand behind any one framework over another, without detailed and specific requirements for a given implementation.
One of the more interesting talks at Wednesday&＃39;s JavaONE was the Web Frameworks Shootout hosted on the Esplande level of the Moscone center. We’ll begin our coverage of this event with an overview of the shoot-out contenders and format. We will then provide a brief description of the distinguishing points of each framework, followed by a collection of the top quotes and one-liners from the shoot-out. Finally, we’ll conclude by presenting you with TheServerside.com&＃39;s own scorecard of how each of the web frameworks faired in the shootout, proclaiming our winners for "Best Business Case" and "Best Technical Case".
The Shoot-Out Contenders:
Frameworks Present:
JavaServer Faces, championed by Ed Burns
Webwork, championed by Jason Carreira
Shale, championed by David Geary
Tapestry, championed by Howard Lewis Ship
Wicket, championed by Eelco Hillenius
Frameworks Conspicuously Absent:
Struts 1.x
SpringMVC
Ruby on Rails
The Shoot-Out Format:
Round 1: Each contender gets 3 minutes to introduce their framework.
Round 2: Questions from the moderator.
Round 3: Questions from the audience.
The Fight Bell: The moderator, Kevin Osborn, controls a fight-bell. The fight-bell is rung for any “hits below the belt ” or when a contender has used their allowed amount of time.
Our Commentary:
One of the major trends we noticed during this shootout was the intense focus on components. Each framework introduced its own flavor of how a web component should work. The message to the audience is that reusable web components are all the rage… the major point of contention now is what these components should look like. We couldn’t help notice, however, that Struts was conspicuously missing. Still, even while Struts wasn’t formally represented, it was clear all represented frameworks were struggling to free themselves from Struts’ shadow, highlighting how they were “different” and “better”. While web-framework technology may be advancing and leaving Struts behind, Struts is still the present incumbent as the tried and true framework with thousands of successful projects under its belt. We couldn’t help noticing that Struts doesn’t include this idea of a web component, so for developers looking for reasons to consider these other frameworks, understanding the idea of a web component is a good place to start.
Framework Overviews (Round 1)
JavaServer Faces (JSF)
&＃xff09; 
&＃xff09; Webwork
&＃xff09; Shale
&＃xff09; Tapestry
&＃xff09; Wicket
Noteworthy Quotes:
Editors Note: The Q&A rounds were a bit like a peanut gallery where it was often difficult to tell which contender said which cheap-shot. Furthermore, there was as much smack talk as there was bonafide technical commentary. Short of who said what, what was most telling during this round was the overall interplay. In an effort to capture this interplay without making our contenders feel their comments were misattributed, we’ve included a collection of quotes overheard during the round without necessarily attributing them to their origin.
Our Scorecard
TSS did its best to keep score during the shoot-out. We decided to score each of the frameworks in a 5-point scale in two separate categories:
| Technical Features | ||
| Framework | Score | Rational |
| JavaServer Faces (JSF) | 4.8 | JSF win’s major points for it’s 1 st class support for true web components. Our analyst felt allegations of JSFs lack of simplicity and elegance to be unmerited. JSF is simple to use, powerful, and revolutionary. And the existence of Shale and Spring -JSF are a testament to the true extensibility of Faces. |
| Webwork | 4.2 | Webwork’s hierarchical MVC model was revolutionary in it’s time and served as a fore-runner to many of the web-component models we are now witnessing. However, we feel Webwork’s HMVC and template facilities are eclipsed by JSFs refinement of these ideas into JSFs truly 1 st class component model. |
| Shale | 4.95 | If Shale stands taller than the other frameworks, it’s because it stands on the shoulders of giants. &＃xff08;一个蓝图&＃xff09;By extending JSF to include advanced web-flow, AJAX support, tiles integration, and client-side validation, our judge felt that Shale represents the future of where web-frameworks need to move technically. |
| Tapestry | 4.75 | Tapestry pioneered the idea of a web-component and set the bar. The claim during the debate that “Tapestry and JSF are neck-and-neck” isn’t too far off. However, JSF’s standardized extension points and first-class support for portlet development is a truly compelling technical case against which Tapestry can’t yet compete. We’ll be watching this race closely. We’d love to see Tapestry support some of the JSF standard interfaces to support interoperability… specifically we’d love to be able to write JSF components using Tapestry and to use Tapestry components as JSF components. We’ll be eagerly watching what Howard includes in the next release. |
| Wicket | Not-Rated | Wicket is the new kid on the block, only having reached 1.0 a few weeks prior to JavaONE. Our judge didn’t feel it was fair to score Wicket without knowing a little more about it. However, if Wicket is truly as simple as it claims to be we’ll certainly be keeping our eye on it. We’d also like to extend to Wicket the same interoperability challenge we just extended to Tapestry. |
| Struts | 4.2 | While Struts wasn’t formally included in the shootout, as the incumbent Struts is the framework by which all other web frameworks are judged. When Struts was released it revolutionized the web world with it’s inclusion of data-bound controls, action event handlers, and externalized navigation. Since then, Struts has expanded to include tiles, the Struts validator, and extensibility through dynabeans. However, Struts has also been a victim of its own success, lacking a formal component model chiefly due to the necessity for backwards compatibility trump ing its ability continue to pioneer new ground. This is why Craig McClanahan, the original creator of Struts, started Shale, in hopes that Shale may one day become the new defacto standard. (*Sorry, .tag files don’t count as web components, since they’re output-only reuse.) |
| Business Case | ||
| Framework | Score | Rational |
| JavaServer Faces (JSF) | 3.9 | JSF is now an official Java Standard and will be an integral part of J2EE 5.0. With endorsements from Sun, IBM, BEA, Oracle, and dozens of other companies, JSF shows a lot of promise. However, we cannot ignore the limited numbers of deployments currently using JSF. If JSF wants to win the heart of IT managers away from Struts, it’s going to need a plethora of success stories behind its belt. Simply naming a few big names, such as FedEx, who have used JSF on a few select projects just doesn’t cut it here. As strong as JSF is, we’ll be waiting to see those success stories come pouring in before we bet the business on it. Yet, in comparison to the other frameworks presented at the shootout (remember, Struts was absent) JSF still came in first place with a score of 3.9. |
| Webwork | 3.1 | When our judge stood up during the audience questions round and asked each framework for an order-of-magnitude estimate of the number of projects currently deployed using it’s framework, all the frameworks, including JSF hemmed and hawed and dodged the question. But we simply LOVED Webwork’s answer “ Do I get to count each of Google’s server’s as its own deployment”… if GOOGLE is willing to bet the business on Webwork, that lends a huge vote of confidence. |
| Shale | 1.3 | While Shale builds on top of JSF and is in many ways technically superior, it is still unproven. From a business risk management standpoint, it’s just too new and its is future too uncertain. Sure, the claim to fame that Shale is a proposal for Struts 2.0 sounds impressive, but that’s just it, it is just one proposal far from being adopted. Quite frankly there are a large number of barriers which must be overcome before it’s accepted by the Struts community at large. |
| Tapestry | 2.8 | Like Webwork, Tapestry is a framework that has been around the block quite a few times and is a robust, proven framework. (It’s used to power TheServerside.com.) Tapestry 4.0 offers a whole new set of exciting features. Yet we feel Tapestry creator Howard Lewis Ship said it best when he described Tapestry as a “research project” for the other web frameworks. For small elite development teams who want all the latest innovations, Tapestry is great. For large IT shops looking for wide industry adoption, a large community of experienced developers to choose from, and hundreds of successful deployments to point to, we just don’t feel Tapestry fits the bill (yet). Our challenge to make Tapestry play nice with JSF still stands… standards compatibility may be just what Tapestry needs to ease the minds of risk-averse IT managers. |
| Wicket | 0.7 | As strong as the case for Wicket’s simplicity may be, there are still less than 5 projects using Wicket, all of which belong to Wicket’s author s. As the new kid on the block, Wicket’s innovations are warmly welcomed. However Wicket still has a long way to go to prove itself. |
| Struts | 4.6 | With literally thousands of deployed projects using Struts, Struts has been adopted as the framework of choice by IT organizations large and small and won’t be leaving anytime soon. Struts stuffers slightly from not being an official standard, but it’s status as a “defacto-standard” is nearly as good. Almost every major vendor now includes Struts support in their products. A risk-averse IT manager can’t go wrong adopting Struts. |
![[大整数乘法] java代码实现](https://img1.php1.cn/3cd4a/24c6f/9f3/0133bb25da242824.jpeg)
京公网安备 11010802041100号 | 京ICP备19059560号-4 | PHP1.CN 第一PHP社区 版权所有 
