Kevin, that's an awesome list. -- Cédric
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]>wrote: > "worse" on what dimension? > > All of these frameworks have to be measured on several criteria: > > - availability of support > - strength of community > - designer-friendliness of templates > - maturity > - stagnation > - flexibility > - performance > - scalability > - robustness > - statefulness > - programming language support > - internationalisation > - separation of concerns > - verbosity/tendency towards boilerplate > - presence of built-in patterns that fit your domain > - interaction with client-side frameworks/technology > - interaction with other server-side frameworks in your stack > - is it a complete self-contained solution? > - etc. > > Every single framework listed there is simultaneously both "best" and > "worst". It all depends on context! > > is it suited for REST? for a client-facing app? > > On 17 February 2012 14:39, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:26:00 +0100, Kevin Wright < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Just spotted this on DZone. It might be relevant: >>> http://css.dzone.com/articles/**comparing-web-frameworks-and<http://css.dzone.com/articles/comparing-web-frameworks-and> >>> >> >> Interesting. Lift would be even worse than JSF, and Play not much better. >> >> >> -- > 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.
