One of the things I actually do at my current job.
I use JavaEE, more specifically TomEE.
JavaEE has improved massively since last time I used it and is now quite good.
Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
101–110 of 213 posts
Re: Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
#102Does anyone have any opinions on DropWizard as a framework? Is it the minimalist web framework for Java, similar to Flask for Python?
I've heard good things about it, but my understanding is it's ideal for creating REST endpoints, so it doesn't have some standards MVC stuff out of the box. Spark is a JVM version of Sinatra which may be closer to what you're looking for.
Re: Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
#103Web based?
Apache Wicket (http://wicket.apache.org/).
Java + HTML. Can't get any simpler than that. Java 1.8.0 makes me not miss Groovy at all.
Re: Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
#104Backend: Scala Spark - http://sparkjava.com ScalikeJDBC - http://scalikejdbc.org Postgres Coming from Rubyland (and AR specifically), I despise writing a bunch of dao/repo code, so I've resorted to codegen-ing my daos/repos. Frontend: Aurelia - http://aurelia.io
I also highly recommend Aurelia. It's a fantastic and future proof front-end library. Out of curiosity, why Spark over Scalatra? ( http://scalatra.org/ )
I used Scalatra on one other project, and I found it to be difficult to deploy. Whether it's true or not, my impression is that Spark is a little simpler to use and deploy than Scalatra. Scalatra is my second choice though.
Re: Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, building crud in grails is really fast. I'm just sorry grails is not so much adopted.
Honestly it blows my mind why more people don't use it. Grails wraps Hibernate/Spring, the two most robust java abstractions that exist. Then, it adds the out of the box ability to do things like parse JSON, re-direct, handle AJAX calls easily, manage session object, ect. ect. In my experience coding web apps there is nothing that even comes close to touching the simplicity of Grails.
Obviously I was unlucky : my experience was things didn't work and was next to impossible to reason about. This was 4 years ago and I went with (and burned myself on) Play Framework.
Re: Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 for Meteor. We've been using Meteor for about 8 months now and are amazed with the productivity and no-boilerplate code. To give some context, we were previously a JVM-only shop. In the past we've used Spring+Hibernate+GWT for one project, Ninja for another project, and a full blown custom stack + Dojo client side in a third project. If JVM is your only choice because you want to connect to legacy Java API, consid…
How do you find the GC/profile/coverage/tuning of the server side node process compared to the jvm?
TBH, we didn't have to do much performance tuning. The Meteor app we are building is heavy on the database CRUD (like real heavy) so there is not much to tune code-wise other than define good data structures for your db. And really, if you have to do any GC tune up for your node app, you really have to ask yourself if there's something you could do instead in your code first.
I must admit that initially it seemed that node js profiling sucks, but it's just that we are still not used to the internal intricacies of V8. When we did profile a couple of times (we use Webstorm so just used flag in the run config), there were too many things out of the context of our code showing up. I think if you show a snapshot of YourKit to someone who hasn't worked with JVM before they would have a similar reaction.
Re: Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
#107I second Play Framework. Have used it and Scala is a very nice language to learn. If I had invested in so much into the JVM, Play Framework would be it. But, if it's just a simple CRUD app, and if you had a choice, I'd recommend you to give Ruby on Rails a try. Hope this helps!
I don't agree because 1. Play!2.x is asynchronous, and you need to find NIO-compatible libraries, 2. I like Jersey for REST resources better than Play!2.x's "routes" file. I had to build a stack this year for an app which needed to share code with another Spring app. I've chosen DropWizard because I could share the Jersey resources and I didn't have to learn everything again.
Re: Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
#108Another vote for Play + Scala here. What I built my last app on, and plan to keep building on it.
For simple CRUD it may be overkill, but it scales nicely for when you go past CRUD.
Re: Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
#109I second Play Framework. Have used it and Scala is a very nice language to learn. If I had invested in so much into the JVM, Play Framework would be it. But, if it's just a simple CRUD app, and if you had a choice, I'd recommend you to give Ruby on Rails a try. Hope this helps!
I don't agree because 1. Play!2.x is asynchronous, and you need to find NIO-compatible libraries, 2. I like Jersey for REST resources better than Play!2.x's "routes" file. I had to build a stack this year for an app which needed to share code with another Spring app. I've chosen DropWizard because I could share the Jersey resources and I didn't have to learn everything again.
You do not NEED to find NIO libraries. It sure helps, yes. But it comes with a wrapper of a webservice library, and slick does the RDBMS nicely (and offshoots like phantom to do cassandra, etc).
Re: Ask HN: What stack would you use to build a CRUD web app on the JVM today?
#110I second Play Framework. Have used it and Scala is a very nice language to learn. If I had invested in so much into the JVM, Play Framework would be it. But, if it's just a simple CRUD app, and if you had a choice, I'd recommend you to give Ruby on Rails a try. Hope this helps!
Glad to see support for Scala/Play sprinkled throughout the responses here. I love working with both. Now I'm considering taking the next step and adopting ScalaJS for some small internal apps.
I made the ScalaJS leap. Good for all my internal JS stuff. Interfacing with legacy JavaScript libs sucks (similar problems to using Typescript).