On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Pouyan Zachar <pouyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> httpserver delivered with the Java 6 is only a simple webserver and is > not a servlet container. on the other hand I don't think that it would > be complicated to imitate some vital functionalities of a servlet > container. > I was aiming to utilize VelocityView which uses Servlet technology, > thus needs a servlet container (and that's where jetty comes into > play) > Those for MVC architecture say "Ayeeeee" > MVC is a nobrainer, the hard question is *which* MVC framework. Criteria are: - Shallow learning curve (since regardless of which we choose, its likely to be unfamiliar to some developers) - Lightweight (so that it doesn't increase the size of Freenet's distributable) - Well supported - Pleasant to use I have experience of two, here is how each stacks up on these criteria: Wicket (my experience is about 4 years out of date though): - Learning curve: Medium, the paradigm takes a bit of getting used to, but once you do it makes sense - Lightweight: Probably not - Well supported: Definitely, years of active development, official Apache project - Pleasant to use: once you get past the learning curve, yes Play: - Learning curve: Shallow, very easy tol get quick results - Lightweight: Probably not, and violates many norms of Java architecture, so probably very tricky to embed in Freenet - Well supported: Seems to have an active development community - Pleasant to use: Very, particularly once you get over the fact that it breaks a lot of Java "rules" In short, neither of these is particularly appropriate. I would also suggest options like GWT and Sproutcore, but then everyone flips out at the prospect of inconveniencing the 3 Freenet users that can't or won't use Javascript-capable web browsers :-/ Ian. -- Ian Clarke Personal blog: http://blog.locut.us/
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
