tiny java web framework

[szczepiq]

I'm looking for zero-stack, zero-overhead, no ORM, no templates, no
MVC web framework for java. Suggestions?

 

[markspace]

I'm looking for zero-stack, zero-overhead, no ORM, no templates, no
MVC web framework for java. Suggestions?

What would you expect such a frame work to do? It sounds like
"nothing." So if you want "nothing," why not just use Apache and static
HTML?

I'm honestly not aware of any such thing for Java. There's no such
thing as "zero overhead" for any language or system.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

I'm looking for zero-stack, zero-overhead, no ORM, no templates, no
MVC web framework for java. Suggestions?

Presumably you don't want to rewrite everything, so I'd suggest servlets
and JSPs in something like Tomcat. Any simpler than that and you may as
well switch to CGI.pm in Perl.

AHS

 

[markspace]

Presumably you don't want to rewrite everything, so I'd suggest servlets
and JSPs in something like Tomcat.

Tomcat or some other JSP/Servlet container is probably the lightest
available, although it doesn't meet the OP's requirements in most
respects. I don't think there are any competitors to Sun's JSP/Servlet
spec at all, everything is layered on top of it.

Besides Tomcat I often see Jetty and Resin mentioned, although I don't
know anything about them from personal experience.

Any simpler than that and you may as
well switch to CGI.pm in Perl.

Still not zero over-head, imo. Still requires Apache+Perl, which is
still an application stack. And you can't get anything done with out a
bunch of modules from CPAN. Even Apache by itself is still "stacked" on
top of the TCP/IP layers.

I honestly don't think the OP has thought about his "requirements" at
all, really.

 

[Tom Anderson]

I'm looking for zero-stack, zero-overhead, no ORM, no templates, no MVC
web framework for java. Suggestions?

http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/net/Socket.html
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt

HTH. HAND.

tom

--
Rumor has it, though, that a vast, echoless complex exists beneath
Atlanta, dug by Ludacris. Its dimensions are too shocking to believe. He
hangs out down there with Umberto Eco, discussing the Hollow Earth Theory
and practicing rhymes. Whenever another royalty check comes through,
he digs deeper. -- Geoff Manaugh

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm looking for zero-stack, zero-overhead, no ORM, no templates, no
MVC web framework for java. Suggestions?

I believe one of the lightest Java web framework you can find is:
http://wicket.apache.org/

Arne

 

[markspace]

I believe one of the lightest Java web framework you can find is:
http://wicket.apache.org/

Now that was interesting and useful. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

Now that was interesting and useful. Thanks for pointing that out.

Call me skeptical. I don't doubt that Wicket is quite lightweight, but
in looking at their examples I don't see anything that I couldn't
accomplish just as easily (and cleanly) using JSF and Facelets.

AHS

 

[markspace]

Call me skeptical. I don't doubt that Wicket is quite lightweight, but
in looking at their examples I don't see anything that I couldn't
accomplish just as easily (and cleanly) using JSF and Facelets.

Interesting from the perspective of something I didn't know existed.
I'd be concerned about deploying a framework that few folks know about.
Will that raise the maintenance costs when it's time to finish up the
project?

Everyone and their pet cat knows JSPs and Servlets, and Tomcat is the
reference specification. Lots of cheap hosting for Tomcat and Resin
too. I've never seen Wicket advertised on the web.

 

[John B. Matthews]

Interesting from the perspective of something I didn't know existed.
I'd be concerned about deploying a framework that few folks know
about. Will that raise the maintenance costs when it's time to finish
up the project?

Everyone and their pet cat knows JSPs and Servlets, and Tomcat is the
reference specification. Lots of cheap hosting for Tomcat and Resin
too. I've never seen Wicket advertised on the web.

FWIW, the example appears to be deployed like a conventional web archive:

<http://wicket.apache.org/examplehelloworld.html>

 

[Tom Anderson]

I believe one of the lightest Java web framework you can find is:
http://wicket.apache.org/

A quick look isn't enough for me to understand it, but enough for it to
look very interesting. I'll have to have a play with this.

tom

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Call me skeptical. I don't doubt that Wicket is quite lightweight, but
in looking at their examples I don't see anything that I couldn't
accomplish just as easily (and cleanly) using JSF and Facelets.

You can probably implement the same functionality using
any Java web framework.

I like JSF but I do not consider it lightweight.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Interesting from the perspective of something I didn't know existed. I'd
be concerned about deploying a framework that few folks know about.
Will that raise the maintenance costs when it's time to finish up the
project?

Wicket is not that unknown.

http://www.theserverside.com/tt/articles/article.tss?l=IntroducingApacheWicket
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-aj-wicket/index.html
http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/35620

I have never used Wicket myself, but it is usually what is recommended
when a Java web app framework lighter than Struts and JSF is requested.

Everyone and their pet cat knows JSPs and Servlets, and Tomcat is the
reference specification. Lots of cheap hosting for Tomcat and Resin
too. I've never seen Wicket advertised on the web.

Wicket is a Java web app (servlet specification, war file etc.) that
can run in Tomcat.

It is just a bit different from Struts, JSF etc. in philosophy.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

A quick look isn't enough for me to understand it, but enough for it to
look very interesting. I'll have to have a play with this.

Me too. If I can find the time. The problem with Java web frameworks
is that there are so many of them.

Arne

 

[markspace]

Wicket is a Java web app (servlet specification, war file etc.) that
can run in Tomcat.

It is just a bit different from Struts, JSF etc. in philosophy.

Ah ok, I thought it was a replacement for a servlet/JSP web container.
Interesting. So does it layer on top of another web container, like
Struts, or does it completely replace the container?

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Ah ok, I thought it was a replacement for a servlet/JSP web container.
Interesting. So does it layer on top of another web container, like
Struts, or does it completely replace the container?

It layers on top like Struts.

But is different from Struts.

We can just quote the first text line on the home page:
and a refreshing lack of XML

Not that I am against XML config files, but it is different
from Struts, JSF etc..

Arne

 

[Roedy Green]

I'm looking for zero-stack, zero-overhead, no ORM, no templates, no
MVC web framework for java. Suggestions?

See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/framework.html

Read up on each one to find something low overhead.

You might look at niggle/Freemarker. It is pretty light weight.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com

"Out of 135 criminals, including robbers and rapists, 118 admitted that when they were children they burned, hanged and stabbed domestic animals."
~ Ogonyok Magazine 1979.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

You can probably implement the same functionality using
any Java web framework.

I like JSF but I do not consider it lightweight.

Arne

I don't think of JSF as lightweight either...middleweight (to use boxing
terminology) might be more accurate. Truth be told, I was referring to
the impression I got of the example code - pages and backing Java - that
Wicket presented on its site. I saw no real advantages here over how I'd
code those examples up using JSF and Facelets.

I was thinking more of the developer experience.

The references on the Wicket site to state management I wish to explore,
however. They assert that their approach to this has advantages and
I may as well find out what they are.

AHS

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

From time immemorial template and toolkit purveyors have touted their
approach as the miracle solution to all your application flow and
deployment needs.

Most people are proud of their work. Too proud to be objective. I guess
that is part of being human.

None that I've seen have reduced the complexity
compared to others;

If you are trying to say that all frameworks has equal complexity,
for all problems then I do not agree.

I agree that there are no framework that is less complex for all
problems.

But there are most certainly frameworks that are less complex
for a given problem.

Ignoring the fact that using the same framework for everything
has advantages regarding palette of skill sets required, then
one can definitely argue choosing the right framework for
each project.

> they've but found different approaches to
categorizing. organizing and applying state and logic. It just might
possibly be that the problem space of application flow and deployment is
itself inherently complex, and this will inevitably leak into the
tool(s) used to manage this complex area.

Some of those approaches are quite valid. Many Java developers report
success and satisfaction with Java Server Faces (JSF) over Java Server
Pages (JSP).

I like JSF too.

But I will consider it most suired for medium-large
solutions with high requirements for "finish" (internationalization,
validation, error messages etc.).

JSF is like the Swing component library for the web. Parts
of it annoyed me until I understood that. JSF is more like Swing than
it is like JSP.

I think JSF is more like Struts and JSP+JSTL+EL than Swing.

Swing does not take a particularly novel outlook on GUIs - it's a fairly
straightforward library and comfortably familiar for anyone who's worked
on event-driven GUI platforms, which is basically all of them.

I think most GUI developers think Swing is a bit heavy/complex as well.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I don't think of JSF as lightweight either...middleweight (to use boxing
terminology) might be more accurate. Truth be told, I was referring to
the impression I got of the example code - pages and backing Java - that
Wicket presented on its site. I saw no real advantages here over how I'd
code those examples up using JSF and Facelets.

I was thinking more of the developer experience.

The references on the Wicket site to state management I wish to explore,
however. They assert that their approach to this has advantages and
I may as well find out what they are.

There has been a lot of criticism of Struts and JSF for being
to "heavy" (which is not a very welldefined term - is is number
of files in solution, size of API or just the presence of XML
config files?).

It may be very good for developing serious web apps. But it may
not be very good at competing with PHP, RoR etc..

So things like Wicket, Grails etc. show up.

Most of them will be gone in 3-5 years, but some of them will
survive and provide an alternative to JSF.

Time will show if Wicket is among those.

As I have stated previously, then I have no personal experience
with Wicket, but it is one being frequently recommended.

Arne