I recently added Struts 1.3 to my application on Tomcat. Here are my observations,
MVC. Servlet/JSP does this fine for me, where JSP is the view and servlet is the controller. I don't see any benefit to get the mapping from an XML file since our mapping is very static.
Action Form. I can see some benefits of action form but not huge.
Tags. I already uses JSTL and don't see any advantage using Struts tags.
So I am thinking about removing Struts. Anyone can think of any other benefits I might have missed?
Personally I myself prefer jsp/servlet but theoretically Struts has some advantages.
Here are some of the advantages i know of, you might have mentioned them already, but i thought it would be better if i list all of them here.
Centralized File-Based Configuration.
Struts values/mapping are represented in XML or property files. This loose coupling means that many changes can be made without modifying or recompiling Java code, and that wholesale changes can be made by editing a single file. This approach also lets Java and Web developers focus on their specific tasks (implementing business logic, presenting certain values to clients, etc.) without needing to know about the overall system layout.
Form Beans.
Bean Tags.
Struts provides a set of custom JSP tags that let you easily output the properties of JavaBeans components.
HTML Tags.
Struts provides a set of custom JSP tags to create HTML forms that are associated with JavaBeans components. This bean/form association serves two useful purposes:
It lets you get initial form-field values from Java objects.
It lets you redisplay forms with some or all previously entered values intact.
Form Field Validation.
Struts has a robust, extensible validator that can be used to uniformly validate your form fields. This validation can be performed on the server (in Java), or both on the server and on the client (in JavaScript).
"Plumbing code" contained within the Struts framework.
Mapping HTTP request parameters to Java objects is handled by Struts, for example. You don't have to do it. This allows you to focus more on the domain problem instead of building infrastructure.
Good documentation & plenty of books.
If you have to leave the project and/or someone else has to maintain it then using a well known and well documented framework will make that job much easier. A homebrewed framework just can't match that.
Broad user testing.
Since Struts is used in plenty web-apps the framework will get looked at by many more eyes than anything you could write alone. Usually, but not always, that means any problems you have will have been seen by someone else (and hopefully resolved) first.
Large knowledge base.
I agree that this perhaps isn't as valid as it used to be but Struts has been used in a lot of projects over the years. From a maintainability point of view using a well known framework makes it easier for other people to work on your application and also help build your own resumé for the future. Right now most development is either in the component based space (like JSF, wicket, tapestry) or in the rails-like space (like rails, grails, lift) but the struts arcitechture is still in use and valid.
You didn't say if you develop in a corporate environment or not, for a personal project perhaps the maintainability issue isn't that much of a problem.
If you decide that struts suits you well you could also have a look at stripes, a struts-like framework that's based on the same concepts but is less verbose when it comes to configuration with more sensible defaults, less xml and support for annotations.
I totally agree with your points about Struts - personally I think its time has come and gone.
I went off Struts in v1 (which I believe is nothing like the latest versions) because the form beans where just added boilerplate code to write.
Since then most applications I've worked on are using Spring as the dependency injection framework, which has made Spring MVC the natural choice - it's simple, straight forward and minimal.
Not just for Struts. But some points to consider for using a framework:
Standarization.
Specialized IDE or plugins for your favourite IDE.
Portability. For example, someone can develope a portlet for integrate your existing struts application in a portal server.
Internationalization.
The most important for me:
You dont have to worry about the issues on the struts code, just upgrade.
You can focus your work in business logic.
Struts is Open Source--
Large Community----
Number of Books available-----
Proven FrameWork----
Popular framework-----
Available since 2001----
+----
the features mentioned above...........
but when u r using struts,the better choice is struts2.
I think your feeling about removing Struts is a sound and understandable reaction. Struts just doesn't seem to do very much for an application.
Related
I am a junior java developer.
I have to make a project that requires me to have 2 kind of users, managers and normal ones.
The manager may add new duties to the normal users, register new users in the system, view everything etc.
The normal users can only view information related with them.
I am able to do this by my own but I am required to use MVC architecture and I am a little confused.
Please if anyone know where can I find any similar project it will help me a lot
I think the best you can do is use Struts framework to implement your application (http://struts.apache.org/). Simple, universally used, realizes MVC pattern in a very easy and understandable way, supports user handling and so on.
If, on the other hand, you are not allowed to use frameworks...
Well you should struct your application with jsp, servlets and POJOs in order to implement MVC custom. JSPs just handle page layout, Servlets manage navigation and general application control and POJOs (Plain Old Java Objects) realize your business logic, in order to keep in separated layers the "look", the navigation issues and the business.
You don't provide a lot of context but judging by your tags (which include JSP and Servlet) then consider taking a look at the Web application technology stack project AppFuse. It will generate a Web Application project for you using Maven, the project builds on top of the state-of-the-art in Web Development. The generated project has exactly the functionality you are [vaguely] describing.
I was reading about JSF that it's a UI framework and provides some UI components. But how is it better or different from number of components that are available from jQueryUI, AngularJS, React, Vue.js, Svelte, ExtJS, or even plain HTML, CSS and JavaScript.
Why should someone learn JSF?
JSF to plain JSP/Servlet/HTML/CSS/JS is like as jQuery to plain JS: do more with less code. To take PrimeFaces (jQuery + jQuery UI based) as an example, browse through its showcase to see complete code examples. BootsFaces (jQuery + Bootstrap UI based) has also a showcase with complete code examples. If you study those examples closely, then you'll see that you basically need a simple Javabean class as model and a XHTML file as view.
Note that you should not see JSF as replacement of alone HTML/CSS/JS, you should also take the server side part into account (specifically: JSP/Servlet). JSF removes the need of all the boilerplate of gathering HTTP request parameters, converting/validating them, updating the model values, executing the right Java method to do the business stuff and generating the HTML/CSS/JS boilerplate code. With JSF you basically end up with a XHTML page as view definition and a Javabean class as model definition. This greatly speeds up development.
As with every component based web MVC framework, you have in JSF less fine-grained control over the rendered HTML/CSS/JS. Adding custom JS code isn't that easy as you have to take the JSF view state in the server side into account as well (e.g. enabling a disabled button in JS side won't enable the button in JSF side, which is in turn a huge security advantage). If that is however a major showstopper, then rather look for an action based web MVC framework like Spring MVC. You'll only take into account that you have to write all that HTML/CSS/JS code (and prevention against XSS, CSRF and DOM-manipulation!) yourself. Also if you fall back from Facelets to JSP, you'll miss advanced templating capabilities as well.
On the other hand, if you have a big JSP/Servlet/HTML/CSS/JS/jQuery based website and you'd like to refactor the repeated JSP/Servlet/HTML/CSS/JS/jQuery boilerplate code into reusable components, then one of the solutions would be JSF. Custom templates, tagfiles and components can aid in this. In that perspective, JSF stands above JSP/Servlet/HTML/CSS/JS/jQuery (and that's also why it's pretty important to understand those basics before diving into JSF).
You can find a real world kickoff JSF based project here: Java EE Kickoff App. You'll see that it contains next to JSF as good HTML5, CSS3 and jQuery.
See also:
Difference between Request MVC and Component MVC
Difference between JSP, Servlet and JSF
What are the main disadvantages of JSF 2.0?
Is it possible to use JSF+Facelets with HTML 4/5?
When to use <ui:include>, tag files, composite components and/or custom components?
JSF was created to make it so that java shops didn't have to learn stuff like jQuery and build complex JS but instead focus on a purely Java stack. In a world where time is money and lots of places already focusing on Java development, one less language/piece in the stack makes training and maintaining faster and thus cheaper.
I'll add that JavaScript is easy to become a maintenance nightmare on large teams, especially if some of the developers on the project are not highly web savvy.
With Javascript and frameworks such as jQuery you have full flexibility and full control . With ext's etc you lose much control and must adapt to the framework. With JSF you totally lose control and must totally adapt to the framework. You're invoked in lifecycles etc. and finally you have no control when the call to the server can be made and where not. If you are to do something considered 'special', you're in very hard position. And in JSF world even such basic things as multicolumn table sort or fields where you can type only limited set of characters (such as number field) are considered 'special'.
However, the more flexibility you have, the more errors or bad practices you can made. High flexibility works only with highly intelligent programmers, others will turn the project into unmanagable nightmare.
But, with JSF and its limited flexibility, there's always only a few (or even only one) correct way to do something. You are very limited, you can't make shortcuts, you must write more XML etc. - but when adapting to standard, there's better control on the code the unexperienced or low-skilled programmers will produce. As a result, big corporations love JSF because it is 'safer' for them.
When I moved from GWT to JSF, I was shocked, how many things, that was natural to me, was considered highly untypical and how much simple things were so hard to achieve. What's more, even making the smallest changes, such as adding ':' sign after label, which in GWT/jQuery powered app would be changing one function generating label, required changing dozens of files with localized properties, which wasn't even considered by anyone except me strange...
The benefits of using JSF are not only in generating xhtml + css + js. Sometimes JSF imposes a restriction on the markup you can generate, like any component based framework. But JSF is not just for that, its lifecyle helps greately. After validating the input it can update the model and sync your server side beans without any effort. you just say "whatever the user types here, check if it's a number, if yes then store it in the property YY in object XX" and JSF will do all that.
So yes, you can still use JQuery, JS, etc. But JSF provides many benefits when it comes to writing server side code and saves you from a lot of boiler plate.
I strongly disagree that jsf adds anything. It only adds overhead. Doing ui stuff on the server is the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. And javascript on large teams works great - its called reusing code.
Just wrap the jquery in some jsp tags, thats all you need and youre done, and dont endure the.shackles and scalability issues with.jsf and richfaces.
Having worked with JSF, Spring MVC, Struts, Grails, JQuery, and ExtJS my opinion is that Grails + ExtJS is one powerful combination.
I would pick Grails over JSF any day. I like the completeness of ExtJS as the client side framework and library, but it comes with a steeper learning curve than JQuery.
Here are the biggest differences between jQuery & JSF:
no MVC architecture
no state control (store date in session or conversation, auto-clean up, etc.)
no (default) validation library
no templating library
no advanced navigation/routing
client side
jQuery was never intended to be used as a full stack webframework. It was more intended for replacing low-level JS code so that writing JS becomes easier and more powerfull in less lines of code.
And it should thus mostly be used to add behaviour on HTML elements.
Having used ExtJS framework for a large web application, I know how easy it is to use. The ExtJS (Schena) is best suited for (Oracle 11g) database interactions in MVC architecture. The View was for the visual / user interactions. The controller specified the 'processing' and the triggers that needed to be used form the PLSQL packages (the API for the CRUD, SQL select queries etc.). The Model and the store files were used to 'map' the data items to the Viewer / inputs.
ExtJS is not suitable for non database intensive web interfaces - where Angular JS may be a better fit.
I'm trying to choose an AJAX-friendly Java framework for my first web application and am interested in first
understanding the architectural differences between the different flavors that are out there.
I like the concept of MVC frameworks, and so am primarily considering the following:
Any JSF variety (ICEFaces, RichFaces, PrimeFaces, etc.)
Spring Web Flow
ZK
Wicket
I've downloaded each of these projects and tried to follow their samples/tutorials, and there is
so much information to ingest I figured I'd take a breather and come here to cover some preliminaries
first.
I'm interested in how each of these frameworks implements the MVC pattern. Obviously, something rooted
in JSF (like ICEFaces) is going to have a different architecture than Spring. I'm sure that this is a
huge question, so I'm not looking for a full-blown tutorial on each of these frameworks; I'm just
curious as to what sort of artifacts (Java sources, XML config files, etc.) a developer has to write in
order to build a single AJAX-driven page using these. I'm interested in the differences to their approach,
nothing more.
For instance, I would imagine that each framework at some point uses a FrontController (or its likes) to
map HttpRequests to the right Controller implementation. That Controller (bean) would then need to do
some processing, possibly hit the database for some information (using ormapping and forming the Model), and
then construct a View/HttpResponse to send back to the client. This is an oversimplification I'm sure, but
there has to be an easy way to explain the high-level architecture for how each of these frameworks accomplishes
that.
Struts uses the ActionServlet (with Struts2 now its just Action) as the controller and model and jsp is the view.
For Spring MVC is achieved by DispatcherServlet which does the routing and Model is not bound to any framework related object you can use any.
JSF - UI jsp or jsf itself, Model - ManagedBean, Controller - FacesServlet.
I did some similar search for my own project a while ago, have a look at the links below:
Comparison based on multiple parameters : http://static.raibledesigns.com/repository/presentations/ComparingJavaWebFrameworks.pdf
Difference between JSF and Struts
http://struts.apache.org/2.0.14/docs/what-are-the-fundamental-differences-between-struts-and-jsf.html
Somewhat related post
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7633583/which-mvc-is-better-spring-or-struts
Spring and JSF
http://blog.springsource.org/2007/04/21/what-spring-web-flow-offers-jsf-developers/
Spring MVC : http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/mvc.html
Best Fit For JSF Component Library: Primefaces based on my own experience
From IBM Clearing the FUD : http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jsf1/
Hope this gives you some insight.
Have a look at Matt Raible's talk on Comparing JVM Web Frameworks here. You can also consider looking at Spring MVC and 'Tapestry`.
Also, this link gives you a matrix on capabilities of various java web frameworks.
You should also check out the Play framework. I have used it a little and really like it.
It is very easy to get started with minimal configuration (reminds me of Rails).
http://www.playframework.org/
We are trying to find a java framework that requires the fewest changes to html/xhtml when we get it from the designer. So far to me it seems Sitebricks is the least intrusive, but it is still in alpha it seems and has been that way for a long time. Wicket seems to come in a pretty close 2nd. JSF, Stripes, and Struts requires a lot, what are we missing.
Tapestry has always had "very-native" html templates, from what I can remember - I haven't looked at the new version, but I don't expect that to have changed drastically.
You should check out Freemarker.
In fact SiteBricks default rendering engine rely on mvel. But SiteBricks can also support freemarker and others rendering engines.
Velocity is similar to Freemarker but I don't know it.
What changes exactly require Struts, Spring MVC, JSP? (not familiar with Stripes/JSF) The only required change I can think of is changing file extension from 'html' to 'jsp'. That's all.
Of course, different frameworks require different amount of configuration (which sometimes can be confusing), but that doesn't involve changing html.
Tapestry and Wicket are the least html-invasive. They both have the same idea of adding annotations into the html, but not butchering it through replacing every html element with taglibs.
Another framework that featured logic-less html templates was RIFE. I think it stopped being developed a couple years ago, though.
I'm currently building a Spring MVC application. I was looking to use JSP pages with tag libraries for handling the view layer and formatting of the HTML, but I've come across another group in my company that uses Velocity templates for the same purpose.
From what I can see, it seems to me as if there are a lot of similarities between the two approaches:
Both have easy-to-understand syntax. Makes it easy for non-developers to understand and use, allowing the designers to focus on the HTML/CSS and only having to use directives/tag libraries in the few cases where they need conditionals/dynamic content without having to have a full understanding of Java.
Simple to see which part of the content is HTML vs which are directives/logic.
Both are heavily used and well supported.
Simple to integrate with Spring MVC.
But in comparing the two technologies, I can't see any specific reasons to use one versus the other. I'm having trouble thinking of any cons specific to either Velocity or JSTL.
So my question is, what are the pros and cons of each in your opinion? If you have built a (Spring) MVC app using one or the other, what made you decide on the view layer technology you are using and what (if anything) made you decide against the other?
Update: I've found a similar discussion of this same topic archived on the Spring Framework forum's here, which might be of some interest to anyone making the same decision between JSTL and Velocity as I am.
I would prefer to use Velocity just because using JSP+JSTL can allow lazy/sloppy developers to get into trouble by adding scriptlets. There should be no reason to have java code in your view tier. It doesn't take much to understand Velocity and as a matter of fact I just picked it up in about two weeks. While I don't like the formatting of the output, for the most part it works pretty well. We're actually not using it in the app's view tier but rather for generating HTML for use by other browsers. We save the output from Velocity as files which is then deployed to a different server for consumption by other web clients.
I actually slightly prefer Freemarker to Velocity, just in case you're open to exploring other options. Comparison here:
http://freemarker.org/fmVsVel.html
I agree with Ben's statements about enforcing a simple view by avoiding JSP and the possibility of scriptlets. I also like the ability to render a Freemarker or Velocity template in any kind of execution environment (JUnit, main() method) without requiring a Servlet/JSP container as JSP would.
JSP is also more difficult to visually differentiate from the embedded HTML. With Velocity, it is very obvious.
Also, the VelocityTools package provides a great deal of additional functionality.