Maybe it's just my poor knowledge of Grails, but I couldn't find a way to create domain objects in different packages. Once I started needing domain objects for deserialized things like facebook data, sometimes with names that overlapped, it became kind of a nightmare. I also find the mixture of Groovy syntax and Java syntax a bit off-putting. You're never quite sure which syntax you need for a method declaration. Whilst a higher level of familiarity with language details might fix that, I think one of the main arguments for Grails is the shallow learning curve, so I think I'm probably not the only person who gets going very quickly, only to find things like this further down the road that become stumbling blocks. It's hard once you become accustomed to things just falling together in a framework to suddenly be struggling with something that seems so basic.
On the flip-side is the amazing speed at which you can prototype. The simplicity of the structure makes things go very fast for a smaller system. I love the way service objects work, and gsp is pretty darn good. Once the system gets bigger, the cycle time from changing a file to seeing it updated on the site can get pretty gnarly. Grails seems to have an increasing propensity to bomb-out when a file changes the larger the system gets, and I find myself having to restart the container pretty frequently, which is painfully slow. Any speed in the beginning is lost with interest further down the line it seems. I did find Groovy to be a great gateway drug into Scala, and with SBT and FSC, many of the problems with cycle time go away. Same goes for syntax. Scala syntax is cleaner than grails. I just haven't looked at Play yet, so I have no idea if it has the same rapid development capabilities that Grails does. Alex On Feb 11, 2012, at 11:33 PM, Joe Sondow wrote: > Alex, I'll acknowledge that Grails is slow, but can you elaborate > about what makes it messy? Would your complex system with dozens of > model classes be more organized in a different framework? I'm not > arguing, I'm just curious. > > On Feb 11, 9:32 pm, Alex Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> I have to say, I got a bit disillusioned with Grails. It's kind of messy, >> and pretty slow. I like what it can do, and the syntax is an upgrade from >> plain Java, but it's just not that great once you end up with a more complex >> system than a couple of dozen model classes. >> >> I've heard good things about Play with Scala, I think I'm gonna check that >> out next. >> >> Alex >> >> On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Rakesh wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> definitely consider Grails. Its the next step up without it being >>> completely different. The Groovy language is very nice but not too >>> intimidating, with the proviso you can drop into plain Java if you >>> need to. >> >>> The Grails framework essentially gives you a >>> convention-over-configuration application framework (based on >>> Spring/Hibernate) excellent for creating corporate CRUD apps quickly. >> >>> R >> >>> On 10 February 2012 11:56, Vince O'Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> In our dept., we're putting together JSF 2.0 applications to run on >>>> the company intranet. They're written in Java 1.6 and hosted on a >>>> Tomcat 6 web server on a linux box and they access data in Oracle >>>> databases. They work fine and are proving reliable but JSF and >>>> managing beans does seem to be something of a dark art. >> >>>> The database is a given and I'd be reluctant to change either the base >>>> language or web server that we use (but might be persuaded). >> >>>> Given those restrictions, what are the most mainstream alternatives >>>> that we might consider? >> >>>> -- >>>> 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. > -- 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.
