We Keep Coding

Monitor Web application

I made a web based application by using the java language, and I would like to monitor its performance periodically (e.g. response time). Also I want to display this information on the homepage of my application. Is that possible? Can I have any idea about how this can be made.
Thanks.

You can take a look at stagemonitor. It is a open source java web application performance monitor. It captures response time metrics, JVM metrics, request details (including a call stack captured by the request profiler) and more. The overhead is very low.
Optionally, you can use the great timeseries database graphite with it to store a long history of datapoints that you can look at with fancy dashboards.
Example:
Take a look at the github page to see screenshots, feature descriptions and documentation.
Note: I am the developer of stagemonitor

Depending on your environment, I would use a cron job or task that measures the response time to request your app using something like HttpClient. Then drop that information into a database table accessible by your app.
The answer here is the simplest way you can measure the time: How do I time a method's execution in Java?

Why not checkout Munin monitoring? The website says
Munin the monitoring tool surveys all your computers and remembers
what it saw. It presents all the information in graphs through a web
interface. Its emphasis is on plug and play capabilities. After
completing a installation a high number of monitoring plugins will be
playing with no more effort.
SLAC at the Stanford university also keeps a large, quite well sorted list with various solutions for network monitoring among other things. SLACs list of Network Monitoring Tools, check for instance "Public domain or free network monitoring tools".

You can also consider to create your own custom web application monitor. Therfore, use the ProxyPattern and and create a concreate monitor. By using Spring framework you can easily swich on and off the monitor during runtime without re- deployment or restart of the web application. Furthermore you can create a lot of different specific monitors by yourself and are able to control what is beeing monitored. This gives you a maximum of flexibility, but requires a bit of work.

It is possible.
The clearest way to go about it, providing true numbers is to simulate a client that performs some sort of activity that mimics the real usage. Then have that client periodically use the website.
This presupposes that your website has a means to accept inputs that do not impact the real back end business. Crafting such interfaces requires some thought, but is not beyond the ability of a person who could put together the web site in the first place. The key points are to attempt to emulate as much using the real website as possible, but guard against real business impact. Basically it is designing for a special user (the tester).
So you might have a special user that when logged in, all purchases are bound to a special account that actually is filtered out to appropriately not demand payment and not ship goods. Provided the systems you integrate with all share an understanding of this live testing account, you can simultaneously test alongside of real production post-deployment.
Such a structure provides a huge benefit. You get performance of the real, live running system. Performance tends to change over time, and is subject to the environment. By fetching your performance numbers on the live system, in the same environment, you get a much better view of what real users might be encountering. Also, you can differentiate and track performance for different activities.
Yes, it is a lot more to design and set up; however, if you are in it for the long run, the benefits are huge.

I guess JavaMelody is the most appropriate solution for you. It can be built into a Java application and due to this feature, it monitors the functionality inside the app. Using this platform, it’s possible to get much more specific parameters for your Java app, than via external monitoring. In addition, it allows you displaying some statistics on your app homepage. Moreover, you can build in the app the graphs from JavaMelody, that essentially facilitates the app monitoring.
Take a look at the detailed overview of JavaMelody: http://cases.azoft.com/enterprise-system-monitoring-solutions-business-apps/

Real life experience with the Axon Framework [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
As part of researching CQRS for use with a project, I ran across the Axon Framework, and I was wondering if anyone has any real life experience with it. Just to be clear, I'm asking about the framework, not CQRS as an architectural pattern.
My project already uses Spring and Spring Integration which fits nicely with Axon's own requirements, but before i dedicate a lot of time to it, I would like to know if anyone has some first hand experience. In particular I'm interested i possible pitfalls that are not immediately apparent from the documentation.

The framework relies heavily on eventsourcing, which means that all state changes are >written to the data store as events. "
This is completely untrue, it does not rely heavily on event-sourcing. One of the implementations for storing the aggregate in this framework use Event-Sourcing but you can easily use also the classes provided to use a standard relational model.
It is just better with event-sourcing.
So you have a historical reference of all your data. This is nice but makes changing your >domain after you've gone in production a very daunting proposition especially if you sold >the customer on the system's "strong auditability" "
I don't think it is a lot easier with a standard relational model that only stores the current state.
The framework encourages denormalizing your data, to the point that some have suggested >having a table per view in the application. This makes your application extremely >difficult to maintain, especially when the original developers are gone"
This is unrelated to the framework but to the architectural pattern in use (CQRS).
And sorry to mention that but having one denormalizer/view is a good idea as it stays a simple object.
So maintenance is easy because SQL request/insertion as also easy.
So this argument is not very strong.
How about a view which uses a 1000 tables model with inner joins everywhere and complex SQL queries?
Again, CQRS helps because, basically, the view data is just a SELECT * from the table which correspond to the view.
if somehow you made a mistake in one of the eventhandlers, your only option is to >"replay" the eventlog, which depending on the size of your data can take a very long >time. The tooling for this however is non-existent.
I agree on the point that currently there is a lack of tooling to replay events and that this can take a long time. However, it is theoretically possible to only replay a portion of the event and not all the content of the event store.
Replaying can have side effects, so >developers become scared of doing it
Replaying event have side effects -> that's untrue. For me side effects means modifying the state of the system. In an event-sourced CQRS application, the state is stored in the event-store. Replaying the events does not modify the event store.
You can have side effect on the query side of the model yes. But you don't care if you have made a mistake because you are still able to correct it and replay the event once again.
it's extremely easy to have developers mess up using this framework. if they don't store >changes to domain objects in events, next time you replay your events you are in for a >surprise.
Well if you misused and misunderstand the architecture, the concept, etc. then ok I agree with you. But perhaps the problem is not the framework here.
Should you store delta's ? absolute values ? if you don't keep tabs on your developers >you are bound to end up with both and you will be f***ed
I can say that for every system I would say that it's unrelated directly to the framework itself. It's like saying, "Java is crap because you can messed up everything if someone codes a bad implementation of hashCode and equals methods."
And for the last part of your comment, I already seen samples like helloWorld with the Spring framework.
Of course it is completely useless in a simple example.
Be careful in your comment to make a difference between the concept (CQRS + EventSourcing) and the framework. Make a difference please.

Since you have stated that you want to use CQRS for your project (and I assume that the JVM is your target platform) I think Axon Framework is an excellent choice.
I have built a fairly complex trading platform on it (no, the trading sample is not complex) and I have not seen any obvious flaws of the framework.
Since I use EventSourcing, the test fixtures made it very easy to write BDD style "given, when, then" tests. This lets you treat an aggregate as a black box and concentrate on checking that the correct set of events come out when you put in a certain command.
About pitfalls: before jumping in, make sure
That you have the concepts of CQRS figured out.
Make a list (paper, whiteboard, whatever) of all your aggregates, command handlers, event handlers, sagas, commands and events. This is the hard part of building your system, figuring out what it should do and how. After this, the reference manual should show you how to wire it all together with Axon.
Some non Axon specific points:
Being able to rebuild the view store from events is a concept of EventSourcing, and not something that is exclusive to Axon, but I found it pretty easy to create a service that will send me all events from an aggregate type, aggregate id or a certain event type.
Being able to build a new reporting component one year after the project is launched and instantly get reports on data from the time of the project launch and onwards is awesome.

I've been using AxonFramework for more than one year on a complex project developed for a big bank.
The requirements were demanding, customer's expectations were high, and release times narrow.
I've choosed AxonFramework because, at the project kick off moment, it was the most complete and the best documented implementation of CQRS available in Java, well designed, easy to integrate, to test and to extend.
After more than one year I think that these considerations are still valid and current.
Another consideration has guided my choice: I wanted that the commitment on such a difficult project to become a training opportunity for me and other members of the team.
We started to develop with AxonFramework version 1.0 and moved to version 1.4 as newer versions were released.
Our team experience with CQRS and the implementation provided by the AxonFramework was absolutely positive.
It provided us with a consistent and uniform manner to develop each feature that guided us and make you feel at ease.
Without it some features of the application would have been much more complicated to develop.
I am referring mainly to the various long-running processes that need to be handled and to the related compensation logic, but also to the many business logics pieces that have been necessary, here and there, that fitted nicely and uncoupled in the event driven architecture promoted by CQRS.
Our choice was to be conservative in the write model, so we preferred a JPA based persistence instead of the event sourced one.
The query model is made up of views. We have tried to make sure that each view contains all the required data from a single page using intermediate views when necessary.
Anyhow we developed the write model as we were applying event sourcing, so we take care of modifying the state of aggregates exclusively through events. When the customer asked for a cloning function of a very complex aggregate it was just a matter of replaying the source events (with uuid translated) to a brand new instance - the down side in this case have been the events upcasting (but this functionality was greatly improved in the imminent 2.0 version).
As in each project during the development we found a lot of bugs, in our code mainly, but also in components supposed to be mature and stable, like the application server, the IoC container, the cache, the workflow engine and some of the other libraries that are easily to be found in any large J2EE application.
As any other human product AxonFramework was not immune to bugs too, but surprisingly for a young and niche project like this, they have been few, not critical, and quickly resolved by new releases.
The kind and immediate support provided by the author on the mailing list is another invaluable feature and helped me a lot when I was in trouble.
The application was released in production a year ago and is currently maintained and under active development of new features.
The customer is satisfied and asks for more.
When to use AxonFramework is more a matter of when to use CQRS. For a response it's worth to go back to the official documentation: http://www.axonframework.org/docs/1.4/introduction.html#d4e51
In our case definitively it was worth it.

The OP specifically asks about the pitfalls relating to the Axon Framework rather than CQRS. This makes the question difficult to answer, as Axon started as a fairly faithful implementation of the famous book by Eric Evans
The main advantage is that it does exactly what it says on the tin: it handles the hard parts of a CQRS based design for you: aggregates, sagas, event sourcing, command handlers, event handlers, BASE consistency etc. When you follow the best practices, you end up with a highly responsive and horizontally scalable application. If you use it with event sourcing, your data is completely auditable, and at least in theory, you can determine the state your application had at any given point in time. Tooling to do this is not provided; you will have to roll your own.
The main developer of the framework is very approachable and extremely knowledgeable on the subject of high performance and scalable computing in java. He tends to answer every question on the mailing list within a few hours. This is both an advantage and the major pitfall: at this time (early 2014), the Axon Framework depends heavily on one person. The rest of the pitfalls I would like to mention are probably more the result of event sourcing than of CQRS or Axon (as of 2018 the framework is supported by the company Axoniq)
Design your data model very carefully upfront. Though it is easy to add to, making fundamental changes to your datamodel can be very difficult. If you make a fundamental mistake in the datamodel, your application may not perform well, or even fail to work at all. For example, if you choose a tree shaped data model, with one long lived aggregate root at the top, this aggregate may grow very large as it accrues more and more events over time, and it may take a long time to load and store. I don't know what will happen if this goes on until an instance of the aggregate no longer fits in RAM, but I imagine could be bad. Don't do it that way.
Another pitfall (event sourcing related) is that, after a number of revisions, it can become increasingly difficult to reason about the state of an aggregate, as you sometimes have to keep in mind not only what the code does today, but also what it did in the past. This definitely makes replaying (a portion of) the event store to rebuild a view table a non trivial task.
Fixing data errors can be more difficult than with a 'traditional' design. Rather than a simple SQL statement, you will often need to make a command to change the state of your application. If the error in your data was caused by a faulty event handler, you can usually just fix the bug, clear the snapshots and let he events for the aggregate be replayed. If your bug caused spurious events to be applied, it can me much more trouble to fix. The faulty events will stay in the event store, and you may have to apply some new ones to restore your data to the correct state, or change the code to ignore or fix their behaviour.

While the framework itself is written decent enough, using it in a real world project has been nothing short of a nightmare and the choice of this framework imo was a major contributing factor to this project's failing.
The framework relies heavily on eventsourcing, which means that all state changes are written to the data store as events. So you have a historical reference of all your data. This is nice but makes changing your domain after you've gone in production a very daunting proposition especially if you sold the customer on the system's "strong auditability"
You cannot have ops guys make ad-hoc changes to the database
The framework encourages denormalizing your data, to the point that some have suggested having a table per view in the application. This makes your application extremely difficult to maintain, especially when the original developers are gone
if somehow you made a mistake in one of the eventhandlers, your only option is to "replay" the eventlog, which depending on the size of your data can take a very long time. The tooling for this however is non-existent. Replaying can have side effects, so developers become scared of doing it
it's extremely easy to have developers mess up using this framework. if they don't store changes to domain objects in events, next time you replay your events you are in for a surprise. Should you store delta's ? absolute values ? if you don't keep tabs on your developers you are bound to end up with both and you will be f***ed
There is practically no adoption of this framework, so googling for answers will not do you any good
Even though the framework does not yet support distribution it's written with it in mind and the api's are a pain to work with because of it. Firing off an event is async by default and if you want to check if an exception was raised executing the command, say a duplicate username exception, you need to pass in a listener to your commandhandler which is a future, then you wait for the future's result to come in, handle any checked exceptions, interuptedexception etc and then you can grab the exception that was thrown from the future. Ofcourse which exceptions a command can raise is not apparent from the api. Defeating the purpose of checked exceptions
Check out some of the example apps. I somehow need a unit of work listener to create an addressbook application? My goodness...

I am currently with a team working on an online casino platform launching our brand Casumo this summer. The domain and platform is build using Axon Framework and so far it it has served us solidly.
A lot of time has been saved not having to build all the infrastructure needed for command handling, event routing, event sourcing, snapshoting etc and the APIs are really nice to work with. The one bug we found in the framework so far was fixed in .. release 12 hours later and Allard is always quick to take suggestions on new features and discussing ways to leverage the framework to fulfill your needs.

Is it wise to develop a prototype GUI before designing other part of the system?

Is it wise to develop a prototype GUI before designing other part of the system?
I am using Java for this small project. It will be a program with GUI and database connection. Say the database has table A and B, the user can choose which table to interact with. The program then display the contents of, say, table A in the GUI, and allows the user to change the content and submit the changes, or delete, or insert.

I think GUI should be developed first before any back-end development starts. There are couple of reason to do this:
You gain clarity on how model objects should interact.
Usability poses lots of restrictions on the way you want to pull data. You will probably want to develop and architect after you're 100% sure what constraints are there.
On business point, managers like to have a dumb function UI before any development start. Many times, the feedback leads in major changes in back-end assumptions. Which is a lot less pain than the case when you get a change request after the back-end development is over.
My personal experience goes that simultaneous development of GUI and back-end is a bit messy. Plus GUI provides solid expectation of behavior from back-end. Moreover, this approach makes sure all the developers, your client and your manager on the same page.

I agree with Joel Spolsky that it is a great idea to write a functional spec before writing code. Part of that spec should include a collection of screen mockups. #O.D. is right, Balsamiq is a great tool. It has saved me a lot of time in the past.
Once you have a functional spec in place that the business users are happy with, you will then have a better idea of how to design your system to meet the requirements. e.g. is high performance a requirement, domain model vs simple crud etc.
Then you should start by taking a single use case and building a vertical slice of your application. Build a GUI, service layer, persistence layer, database schema in one iteration. This will hopefully point out any problems with your design and give you the chance to modify it before you start building out the horizontal functionality.

I'd say yes and no.
No because you should design you application to be modularized enough so that your logic and data do not depend on UI design.
Yes because it is always smart to design everything before you actually start implementing it.
So what I mean is that you should make a concept, but not let your UI concept 'tie your hands' when you implement your logic. So if your managers clients don't like your conceptual UI, you can always change it without actually changing your application logic.

Well showing you GUI brfore starting to program is a very a good Idea, specially that you enable the enduser (Customer) to check if the UI is up to his expectations, which can save you lots of time.
In order to do that you dont necessarily need to develope a "real" prototype, you can use programms which enable you to fast design the UI of your App, including a minimal workflow simulation instead of full funcionality.
i had a very good experience with: Balsamiq can really recommend it

Writing spec before your code is always a good idea, because it makes you think. But most specs I have seen are not that good. And if the spec is too technical, users will at the end sign-off your spec without really understanding what are they going to get.
I have seen best results when either presenting the User Manual to the client, or by discussing mockups of the system one scenario at a time.
Note that half-baked mockups won't do the trick. You need your mockups to be fully populated with relevant data (Ever tried to discuss some screens with accounting while the numbers on the screen don't match? There's no way at all you could explain to them these are only dummy numbers...)
And the caveat of using mockups is that users will more often than not believe the app is "almost finished", whatever you do or say. It must be some subconscious thing, I'm not sure. But to avoid that, most of specialized tools have either only "black&white" look and feel or multiple skins you can switch to and from.
There is a pretty complete list of mockup tools here. Many of them are free:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GuiPrototypingTools
My own tool is pretty popular: http://MockupScreens.com, I created it a long time ago exactly because of my own frustration with above mentioned problems.

What's the limit of BONITA Platform ? Can a Business Analyst generate a whole Java Web App with just pre-programmed connectors?

I'm studying some systems that allow faster App dev cycles. So I stumbled upon BONITA. It seems that by preparing some connectors you can allow a Business to generate a whole App.
What's the limit of Bonita and what is needed to improve it ?

Bonita is one of probably many Business Process tools. Like all such tools there are good and bad things. Yes they allow some business processes to be automated by users by dragging and dropping components, or process steps in some sort of GUI. And like systems, say SAP for example, if you fight precisely in the SAP box it can get you going much faster and easier. I've never met any business that fit "exactly" in the SAP box though, and usually there are years spent customizing it. In my experience, the users usually give up on this after a while and want developers to do this for them when they experience something that doesn't quite do what they thought it would. The developers try it out, become frustrated with the limitations or just get overwhelmed by NIH syndrome, and the tool is soon abandoned. Alternatively, and perhaps more concerning, is when you get the true user enthusiast that quite innocently takes down a production database in the middle of the day trying to look at their data in new ways, but without training wheels.
YMMV

Actually I'm evaluating Bonita Open Solution (BOS) for internal use in small company and I think it's a great platform to build workflow applications on. I believe that a manager having basic BPM knowledge can quite easily prototype the whole process including user interaction forms, some of process variables and condition on flows, and simulate anytime with one click. Since you're modelling application, you can completely reorganize the flow when optimizing process. Anytime a programmer can come and implement interactions with external services using connector, again not a hard thing. Once you are ready, just export application and deploy on server.
Bonita has simple but powerful Java API. Accessing it you can tweak most limitations.
Nice thing about Bonita is it's active development. Also forum is quite supportive and even the developers of BOS answer the questions in a short time (hours or few days on weekends).

How do I decide between a using a Swing GUI or a light-weight web client for the user front end of my Java application?

I always seem to have this internal struggle when it comes to user interface. I build up an application "engine" and tend to defer user interface to after I get my algorithms working. Then I go back and forth trying to decide how to let a user interact with my program. Personally, I'm a fan of the command line, but I can't expect that of my users generally.
I really like what's possible in the browser in the age of web 2.0 and ajax. On the other hand it's not so hard to make a Swing front-end either, and you can generally count on a more consistent presentation to the user (though using a good javascript framework like YUI or jQuery goes a long way toward normalizing browsers).
Clearly both approaches have their merits and drawbacks. So, what criteria / parameters / situations should lead me to use a lightweight (e.g. web-based) GUI? What criteria / parameters / situations should lead me to use a heavier (e.g. Swing-based) GUI?
It is not my intent to start a flame war, merely interested in the community's constructive/objective opinions.
Edit #1
In light of the first few responses, I would like to clarify that I would like to deploy my application regardless, not host it on some internet server necessarily. So I would have to deploy with a light-weight web-server infrastructure a la Jetty/Tomcat or similar.

It depends on the application and this is essentially a usability driven question (though there are considerations like data storage and platform requirements). Think of the pros and cons.
Pros of a lightweight Web UI:
Ease of distribution
Platform independent
Ease of maintenance
Cons of a lightweight Web UI:
Less environmental control
Markup standards vary between browsers
Requires a web server and everything that goes with it
Pros of an executable UI
More environmental control (i.e.: full screen applications, etc)
Not necessarily subject to latency and outages
Cons of an executable UI
Pushing updates may be more difficult
Requires installation
Potential platform requirements (frameworks, packages, etc)
Potentially requires knowledge of advanced networking topics (web services, etc)

One small factor you may want to consider is that the user will have go through some type of installation (albeit minimal) if you distribute a swing application.
Also a web application will allow you to accurately track the usage of your application (via google analytics or something similar). Not sure if that's a concern but it may be useful to you in the future.

If it is a client-server application I would normally go for a web frontend for the application.
You will save yourself of countless problems with things like installed JRE versions, distributing upgrades, application permissions, disappeared shortcuts...

You need to break the requirements of the application down to decide this...
Do the users have Java of sufficient version installed? It will need to be, to run a Swing GUI.
Do you have a web server?
Do you need the flexibility of a Swing GUI or the accessibility of the web interface?
Is Java Webstart and option, if so, you can distribute a Swing GUI via the web.
Does your application perform extensive calculations or processing? If so, a client app may be the answer.
There are a million questions such as these. I would suggest a brain storming session and keeping track of all the pros and cons of each, adding a point score, than throwing it all away and going with your gut feeling :)

If you anticipate there being frequent updates to the app then web based may be better since the user would not have to update the client or install a new client containing the updates.
If you think that the user may need the ability to use the app while not conencted to the internet then swing would be better.
Just two things off the top of my head.

Think about the users and use cases of your project.
Do users expect to have access to it when they're disconnected from the Internet (for example, on an airplane or in a coffee shop with no Internet access)? Use Swing.
Do you want users to be able to access the same tool from different computers (for example, both at work and at home)? Use a web UI.
Also consider whether the user needs to save and load data, and whether the tool produces data files that some might consider sensitive (if so, storage on the web might be an issue).

Do make a quick guess I often try to ask myself/customers if the application has a high "write" demand.
For a mostly read-only application a thin-client solution is perfectly well suited.
But if a lot write actions are needed then a swing desktop application has more flexibility.
Personally I always prever a swing desktop application. It can easily deployed using Java Webstart.

Not knowing anything about your application I can not give the best recommendation possible. However I can state from personal/professional experience that installing an application on clients machines is a LOT more of a pain in the ass than it seems.
With AJAX/web you really only have to worry about supporting like three browsers. Installation messes/updates are only felt once when you deploy the product to the web server.
With like a stand-along Swing app, you get to deal with the really really big mess that is installing the application onto unknown systems. This mess was so bad that things like AJAX were really pushed along to make web apps behave/feel like a real native app.