Oh, and I do want to say that when a framework prescribes a specific use of components and isn't very flexible, then I'd say it is no longer a framework - but is a "platform".
On Apr 28, 3:52 am, egervari <[email protected]> wrote: > I think modules/components and frameworks have their places. > Frameworks are good when you don't want to specify a common workflow > over and over. As long as the framework doesn't say *how* you achieve > each part of the workflow, the framework will be good. > > With just components and no framework, you are responsible for tying > them together to make something useful. While you save time and code > by reusing components, the common infrastructure elements will > repeat. > > The solution is to have good use of components and frameworks. > > On Apr 27, 5:24 am, Wildam Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:53, mgkimsal <[email protected]> wrote (in > > the "Wikipedia is written in...." thread): > > > > I'm not sure I've run across anyone in the last 10 years who'd actually > > > try to > > > write a moderate (or even small) web application using *just* Java (or > > > Java/ > > > servlets, if you will). > > > I think, that is one of the biggest disadvantages of Java web > > application development, that either you go really to core and do > > everything on your own (including playing the web server role) or you > > end up with a quite big stack of modules/frameworks. > > > In reality I find the framework approach in general full of flaws. I > > did quite a lot of development in the early ninetees using a > > programming language that was quite one single framework by definition > > (Magic II). For me it is an extreme sample of the framework approach. > > While that was real efficient and quick development, it was a very > > constraining way of programming. With the need of more flexibility and > > the need of more integration options with other stuff it was not > > fitting my needs any more. Since then I had a few contacts with a few > > frameworks or framework like environments and I am convinced that a > > more "utility" and "modularity" thinking when designing software is > > much more efficient. > > > When I am designing software, I am trying to create many very > > separated modules that can be reused in completely different > > circumstances. I do see that with existing frameworks often you need > > to adopt a huge infrastructure or you leave it alone completely. This > > is my major critics on frameworks. > > > > generations (in web time) of tools and best practices documentation > > > for web applications today that didn't exist 10-12 years ago > > > for all technologies. Most mid-level app developers have a degree > > > of performance and efficiency built in to their frameworks > > > which our digital forefathers fought long and hard to develop. :) > > > Of course, many people have contributed outstanding strategies for > > optimizing a lot of stuff, but the problem is, that you usually can't > > adopt just a small part. > > > -- > > Martin Wildam > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
