[ajug-members] Can anyone recommend a book for learningRubyonRails?

[Les Hazlewood]

What does "happy" mean?  That's somewhat nebulous in a discussion comparing
web frameworks ;)

For me, happy means that I enjoy the architectural philosophy of the
framework, that I'm efficient when using it, that it is intuitive and well
documented, and it is very extensible and reusable.

I think that mentioning RoR and Stuts and Webwork and similar frameworks on
a list about an OO language are *completely* missing the point.  And its not
because ruby is mentioned - I could care less.  For me its about perception,
and that I think these frameworks and those like them totally miss the mark.

Component oriented design is much more in line with Object-Orientation.
Frameworks that cater to component-oriented design, re-use, OO, etc, etc.
*That's* what people should be looking at.  Frameworks like Wicket, GWT,
Tapestry 5, and my current favorite, Click.  Sure you can bundle JSF in this
mix, but its kind of a hybrid in that regard - Wicket, GWT and Click at
least are superior to me because they embrace these concepts fully.  I don't
have much experience with Tapestry 5, but it is also quite nice.

Code written for these component frameworks are more reusable across
different views.  If you're a good OO developer, you're usually more
efficient with them.  They encourage clean architectures.  They are very
performant.  State management is significantly easier, because Components
represent state and behavior, as good objects should.

Then there are what I call 'psuedo-OO' web frameworks that are really just
procedural programming constructs wrapped in OO hierarchies.  Pretty much
crap as far as I'm concerned.  I lump Spring MVC (not Spring core), Struts
2, sometimes JSF, and others like them into this mix.  If you need to use a
Servlet Request or Response beyond a rare occurence, that's a red flag.
Looping logic in a JSP/JSF file too often - that's a red flag.  Unable to
easily subclass things and have them used in multiple locations - that's a
red flag.  They just don't cater well to the world of OO, which IMO should
not be recommended or embraced by folks on a Java list ;)

I only hope that people look to these component oriented frameworks and
leave the 'pseudo' ones in the past.

Cheers,

Les


On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Joe Sam Shirah <joe_sam at bellsouth.net>wrote:

>
>    With such a strong view, I assume you have equally strong business and
> technical reasons to support it.  My advice, guaranteed to be worth what
> you
> paid for it, is to lay them out and take your case to boss, staff, team or
> whoever forced you away.
>
>    I can only say, without dumping on other frameworks, that I am happy
> and, more importantly, my clients are happy.
>
>
>                                                         Joe Sam
>
> Joe Sam Shirah -        http://www.conceptgo.com
> conceptGO       -        Consulting/Development/Outsourcing
> Java Filter Forum:       http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/
> Just the JDBC FAQs: http://www.jguru.com/faq/JDBC
> Going International?    http://www.jguru.com/faq/I18N
> Que Java400?            http://www.jguru.com/faq/Java400
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Allan Ditzel" <allan.ditzel at gmail.com>
> To: <ajug-members at ajug.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [ajug-members] Can anyone recommend a book for
> learningRubyonRails?
>
>
> > Having recently been forced to move from Spring based architectures to
> > Seam+JSF, I can say I'm not as impressed. Seam makes JSF palatable, but
> if
> > given the choice between Spring+view container of choice OR JSF (in
> > whatever
> > incarnation) I would go back to Spring in a split second.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Joe Sam Shirah <joe_sam at bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>    As far as my two cents, I've been happy with my choice of JSF and
> >> Facelets.  With some boilerplate code, you can go straightaway and
> >> eliminate
> >> JSP altogether, keeping (IMO) code where code belongs.  On the last two
> >> projects, I've included RichFaces for rich and ajax capabilities.  I
> tend
> >> to
> >> be minimalist and have run into few framework issues.  On larger
> >> projects,
> >> faces-config.xml tends to get big, but virtually everything is in one
> >> place.
> >>
> >>    If anyone's interested, I have an article with code, and live demo on
> >> conceptGO's Community page, at:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-richfaces/index.html?S_TACT=105AGX02&S_CMP=HP
> >>
> >>    Because of JEE support, I believe JSF is worth a look.  I have word
> >> from
> >> an EG member that JSF 2.0 will support varieties of both Facelets and
> JSF
> >> Templating.
> >>
> >>
> >>                                                         Joe Sam
> >>
> >> Joe Sam Shirah -        http://www.conceptgo.com
> >> conceptGO       -        Consulting/Development/Outsourcing
> >> Java Filter Forum:       http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/
> >> Just the JDBC FAQs: http://www.jguru.com/faq/JDBC
> >> Going International?    http://www.jguru.com/faq/I18N
> >> Que Java400?            http://www.jguru.com/faq/Java400
> >>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ajug-members mailing list
> ajug-members at ajug.org
> http://www.ajug.org/mailman/listinfo/ajug-members
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ajug.org/pipermail/ajug-members/attachments/20080730/7ab4c8aa/attachment.html