4 ms·

How does this differ from Play?

by swGooF 14y ago

drivingmenuts 14y ago
I was looking for actual information. Nice page and all, but it would be nice to see what Jodd brings to the table up front, rather than being distracted by lots of CSS/JS fx. Take a look at the Play framework page. Starts with an elevator pitch and as you work your way down the page, you get more more details (without going into a lot of detail), enough to get a nice overview. There's a time and place for heavy css/js effects, but I'm thinking this is not one of them.
eropple 14y ago
That's a very good question (and one I'm personally interested in because I'm pretty frustrated with Play and the Play developers right now). Jodd looks like a very 'old-school' Java framework. This is not a compliment--it looks like a few tools that sit on top of Servlets, and that's just terrible. Wire-up appears to be XML (bad developer, no cookie) and it just doesn't look better than any other Servlet-based library. (Personally, I am convinced that there are no good Servlet-based libraries, and this doesn't help change that.) The various libraries they keep touting on their various pages are a little scary. I'm pretty well-versed in the Java ecosystem, but I don't know what "Petite", their dependency injection library, is. I know what Guice is, and I know what Spring (barf) is, but this thing is new, and by default shifty and untrustworthy. "Props" - looks terrible compared to HOCON; gross syntax, no importing, etc. Their database library touts itself as "better than JDBC", but looks almost identical and makes that little voice inside whisper, "it's a trick - get an axe." I'm not trying to harsh on them, because they clearly spent a lot of time on this framework, but this is enterprisey as hell.
- cwinters 14y ago
  Plus: reinventing date/time without using (or even referencing) Joda? Ouch.
- dfragnito 14y ago
  Care to share your frustrations with play? We are considering it for an upcoming project.
  - eropple 14y ago
    -Play 2 was released too early and Play 1 isn't getting any love anymore, so it's currently in an awkward spot. There's stuff you can do in Play 1 that can't be done in Play 2 yet; they're working on it, but it's not yet there. -Play 2 is uncomfortable and vaguely user-hostile if you want to use Java. More than most Java apps, that is. It's fairly obvious that the Play team considers Scala to be The Way To Do It, so you'd better be on-board or you're probably going to hate using it. (I'm OK with Scala, though as I've said before I find it troublesome[1]. I hear eventually Kotlin is supposed to be supported though.) -Play is all SBT. You may find that you love SBT, in which case this won't be a problem for you, but it has been a while since a build tool made me yearn for the days of ye olde makefile. There's a lot of "magic" involved and there's little coherent documentation for either SBT or Play's use of it. -Play's DEV mode pins a core on my laptop and turns it into a campfire on my lap. A ticket asking what's up with this has gone unanswered. -Play 2 is designed for single projects and trying to build sane multi-project systems (like, a frontend app, a common code library, and a backend app) can be an exercise in frustration. This has gotten less bad over time, but it's still not great. I literally don't remember the last time I wrote a web app that wasn't at least three separate pieces, so for me this is very nearly a game-breaker. -The developers are apparently pretty insular. It seems like they are more than happy to have you fix their bugs, but adding features that you need--not so much. Sample size of one, so apply all necessary caveats, but I've found that offers of help and requests for guidance for making what you want to do fit into their plans for Play seem to get ignored[2]. I want to help make it better, so let's talk and see how to do that, yeah? (Lack of good communication isn't just a Play thing, but seems common throughout the Typesafe stack of libraries.) -The community isn't really a community at all. If you look at their Google Group, it's mostly the same five questions over and over again and nobody seems to really stick around. I look at something like Rails--which I can't stand working with, but they have the "active, good community" part absolutely nailed--and you see a lot of newbie questions, but you also see a lot more people sticking to the community and, IMO, that bodes a lot better for the platform. . Honestly, Play isn't that bad, if your needs line up closely to the Play developers'. Mine don't, so for me it's a very frustrating experience. If you're just rapidly iterating on something small I have to think it'd be great - hot reloading works great (although compiling templates seems like it'd turn off designers) and I would believe that, once over the initial hurdles, you can probably Get Stuff Done very effectively. But every time I work in Play I start getting a little bit crabby and want to go write a better web framework (with blackjack! and hookers! in fact, forget the blackjack!) but I know I don't really have the time to do it justice. As such, my projects mostly end up being a set of libraries bolted together on top of Jetty (a handler, a regex dispatcher, etc.). Maybe at some point I'll codify them into an actual for-realsies "library". It'd be a good reason to learn how to do Java class reloading... [1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4051556 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4051556 [2] - https://play.lighthouseapp.com/projects/82401/tickets/502-more-flexible-configuration-for-multi-project-setups https://play.lighthouseapp.com/projects/82401/tickets/502-mo...

How does this differ from Play?

by swGooF 14y ago

How does this differ from Play?

I was looking for actual information. Nice page and all, but it would be nice to see what Jodd brings to the table up front, rather than being distracted by lots of CSS/JS fx. Take a look at the Play framework page. Starts with an elevator pitch and as you work your way down the page, you get more more details (without going into a lot of detail), enough to get a nice overview. There's a time and place for heavy css/js effects, but I'm thinking this is not one of them.

eropple 14y ago

That's a very good question (and one I'm personally interested in because I'm pretty frustrated with Play and the Play developers right now). Jodd looks like a very 'old-school' Java framework. This is not a compliment--it looks like a few tools that sit on top of Servlets, and that's just terrible. Wire-up appears to be XML (bad developer, no cookie) and it just doesn't look better than any other Servlet-based library. (Personally, I am convinced that there are no good Servlet-based libraries, and this doesn't help change that.) The various libraries they keep touting on their various pages are a little scary. I'm pretty well-versed in the Java ecosystem, but I don't know what "Petite", their dependency injection library, is. I know what Guice is, and I know what Spring (barf) is, but this thing is new, and by default shifty and untrustworthy. "Props" - looks terrible compared to HOCON; gross syntax, no importing, etc. Their database library touts itself as "better than JDBC", but looks almost identical and makes that little voice inside whisper, "it's a trick - get an axe." I'm not trying to harsh on them, because they clearly spent a lot of time on this framework, but this is enterprisey as hell.

cwinters 14y ago
Plus: reinventing date/time without using (or even referencing) Joda? Ouch.
dfragnito 14y ago
Care to share your frustrations with play? We are considering it for an upcoming project.
- eropple 14y ago
  -Play 2 was released too early and Play 1 isn't getting any love anymore, so it's currently in an awkward spot. There's stuff you can do in Play 1 that can't be done in Play 2 yet; they're working on it, but it's not yet there. -Play 2 is uncomfortable and vaguely user-hostile if you want to use Java. More than most Java apps, that is. It's fairly obvious that the Play team considers Scala to be The Way To Do It, so you'd better be on-board or you're probably going to hate using it. (I'm OK with Scala, though as I've said before I find it troublesome[1]. I hear eventually Kotlin is supposed to be supported though.) -Play is all SBT. You may find that you love SBT, in which case this won't be a problem for you, but it has been a while since a build tool made me yearn for the days of ye olde makefile. There's a lot of "magic" involved and there's little coherent documentation for either SBT or Play's use of it. -Play's DEV mode pins a core on my laptop and turns it into a campfire on my lap. A ticket asking what's up with this has gone unanswered. -Play 2 is designed for single projects and trying to build sane multi-project systems (like, a frontend app, a common code library, and a backend app) can be an exercise in frustration. This has gotten less bad over time, but it's still not great. I literally don't remember the last time I wrote a web app that wasn't at least three separate pieces, so for me this is very nearly a game-breaker. -The developers are apparently pretty insular. It seems like they are more than happy to have you fix their bugs, but adding features that you need--not so much. Sample size of one, so apply all necessary caveats, but I've found that offers of help and requests for guidance for making what you want to do fit into their plans for Play seem to get ignored[2]. I want to help make it better, so let's talk and see how to do that, yeah? (Lack of good communication isn't just a Play thing, but seems common throughout the Typesafe stack of libraries.) -The community isn't really a community at all. If you look at their Google Group, it's mostly the same five questions over and over again and nobody seems to really stick around. I look at something like Rails--which I can't stand working with, but they have the "active, good community" part absolutely nailed--and you see a lot of newbie questions, but you also see a lot more people sticking to the community and, IMO, that bodes a lot better for the platform. . Honestly, Play isn't that bad, if your needs line up closely to the Play developers'. Mine don't, so for me it's a very frustrating experience. If you're just rapidly iterating on something small I have to think it'd be great - hot reloading works great (although compiling templates seems like it'd turn off designers) and I would believe that, once over the initial hurdles, you can probably Get Stuff Done very effectively. But every time I work in Play I start getting a little bit crabby and want to go write a better web framework (with blackjack! and hookers! in fact, forget the blackjack!) but I know I don't really have the time to do it justice. As such, my projects mostly end up being a set of libraries bolted together on top of Jetty (a handler, a regex dispatcher, etc.). Maybe at some point I'll codify them into an actual for-realsies "library". It'd be a good reason to learn how to do Java class reloading... [1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4051556 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4051556 [2] - https://play.lighthouseapp.com/projects/82401/tickets/502-more-flexible-configuration-for-multi-project-setups https://play.lighthouseapp.com/projects/82401/tickets/502-mo...