4 ms·
If you compare the "Getting Started" sections for both frameworks (Dropwizard's is here: http://www.dropwizard.io/0.9.1/docs/getting-started.html http://www.dro
by j_jochem 11y ago
If you compare the "Getting Started" sections for both frameworks (Dropwizard's is here: http://www.dropwizard.io/0.9.1/docs/getting-started.html http://www.dropwizard.io/0.9.1/docs/getting-started.html), it looks like the initial setup for Apollo is a lot less complex. This may be a significant advantage, because it cuts down project setup time, which is one of the annoying parts of microservices.
However, I can imagine having to pay for this once you need some more advanced features. Dropwizard comes with a lot of stuff for configuration management and integration, which I guess is mostly missing in Apollo.
- ones_and_zeros 11y agoReally? The dropwizard example looks almost identical except for an extra Config related class (which seems like a more sane design to me) and 2 extra methods to implement. Not sure I'd call it a lot less complex. I think what is happening is the getting started guide for dropwizard looks significantly more indepth than the Apollo guide, covering some features that are entirely optional (and may not even be supported by Apollo.)
- bjoernw 11y agoProject setup time with microservices really shouldn't be the issue. Build one template then use for all your services. Don't pick your framework because of setup time (plus I want to argue the differences are minor).