On 13 February 2014 20:49, clay <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure. > > Play is for more full web applications with MVC and server-side generated > HTML, right? >
Not so much. Ask Google for "Play Framework REST" and you'll get a ton of hits. It has JSON support baked in and everything. Dropwizard is also pretty cool though. > For simple REST services, I recently have been sticking with Jersey + > embedded Grizzly. Is Play relevant here? I noticed > http://dropwizard.codahale.com/ which seems to be a codified version of > what I was already doing. > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:34:31 PM UTC-6, KWright wrote: > >> Would now be a good time to advocate in favour of the Play framework? >> >> >> On 13 February 2014 20:25, clay <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'd second the recommendation to use an embedded server. >>> >>> I was really happy with Grizzly. I couldn't see any advantages that >>> embedded Jetty had over embedded Grizzly >>> >>> Also, Spring works fine with embedded servers. Lots of people are doing >>> that. I did that, although I would prefer to not use Spring in the first >>> place: it's a glorified bag of global variables! >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
