Talk:Comparison of web application frameworks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-05. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 To-do list for Comparison of web application frameworks: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
 |
On 9 September 2007, Comparison of web application frameworks was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
|---|
[edit] Frameworks
Drupal?? It's a CMS/Blog like Joomla! or Wordpress...why is it listed here? If that's being listed, then you'd have to list Joomla!, Wordpress, etc. and of course Joomla! 1.5 now follows an MVC design pattern...but I still wouldn't put joomla! or drupal in this list of web frameworks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.220.73 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ORM
Struts has ORM? Um, no it doesnt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.56.5 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Popularity
With so many choices, a popularity ranking would cut through a lot of noise. A simple start might be google hits, download activity, sites deployed, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.66 (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Feature comparison
The feature comparison table is useless. All cells are practically "Yes". This is just a complicated way of saying X, Y, Z have features A, B, C.
Here's an example, for the PHP frameworks: http://www.phpit.net/article/ten-different-php-frameworks/ I'm not saying we should copy this, but the columns they used were useful to me.--Justfred 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
--hey, folks, I don't know what DB migration framework(s) really is, but I use CakePHP a lot, and it has nothing that I'd call a migration. Then again, what the heck is a DB Migration (aside from a very generic buzzword that people toss around very frequently) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.233.110 (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2007
- DB Migration frameworks allow you to add and remove columns or tables from a database table using special schema change files. These are useful as you can store the schema change files in a revision control system. I believe the term was coined by Ruby on Rails. --Powerlord 02:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah CakePHP does not really have DB migration built in. There is a plugin or two which are similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.233.110 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Missing features for comparision:
-- Is the framework able to generate (and serve) pdf (or other ) documents and images in addition to html
-- How does the framework support client authentication and sessions?
-- How does the framework support i18n/l10n? Is it easy or hard? Localization by session? Can it get the locale from the agent information? Can user choose language from web page selection?
-- What databases are supported? ODBC support?
-- Can you specify page caching and expiration?
-- Support for serving gzipped web pages?
--64.238.49.65 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Note
Just a note, I've added what I know... I'm hoping others can fill out more details, and can help collaborate on a list of suitable "features" to verify.
I'd like this to end up looking something like Comparison of Linux distributions.
Ian Bailey 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of ORM and Ajax is not clear in the second table: does theses functionalities come natively (so, hibernate is not part of some frameworks) or it can be used with some tricks (for instance, Struts can do Ajax things, but real support with a true library is only available with the lastest versions).
Kartoch 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scope
What is the scope of this article ? JBoss, Websphere, Geronimo, ... are Application Servers. Struts, JSF, Tapestry, ... are Web-MVC-Frameworks which can be integrated in application servers. Preconfigured Application-Servers (you can call it "Web Application Frameworks") are Spring, Glassfish, Jboss-Seam, and so on - the article is mixing these techniques. --84.185.141.101 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point, maybe we should make the distinction here and in Web Application Framework? Perhaps these types can be compared separately... I added a list of potential candidates just of the top of my head, if some of these options are truly irrelevant than we can remove them Ian Bailey 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of web application frameworks yet to be included in the comparison
[edit] Seaside
This article does not include Seaside among the web application frameworks being compared. --Betamod 07:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Echo2 // Echo3
Echo framework is not yet used broadly but rich in functionality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterklee (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge List of web application frameworks into Comparison of web application frameworks
What good is a list if it's just a list with no further info? The comparison page is much more useful, in addition to giving you a list of web application frameworks as well. If we keep only the comparison page, new web application frameworks will need to be added to one page only, instead of two, additionally eliminating any problems of keeping the two pages in sync. --The Wild Falcon 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The only possible problem I see with that is that it will create one humongous table. --Powerlord 02:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- One other problem is that the List page contains many "sub" frameworks that are not intended to solve the same problems as the "big" frameworks mentioned on this page. Including them here would lead to lots of blank columns that are not applicable to particular frameworks. One example of this is the various Ajax/JavaScript frameworks, that would not normally implement an ORM layer. Perhaps we could have a separate table for each area? (Database access, Javascript, ...) Ian Bailey 12:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I vote that both tables be merged to one document but kept as individual tables -- Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.133.154 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can merge the "List" page into the first section of the "Comparison" page, which contains lots of easily verifiable information. Then we can compare frameworks in more detailed criteria when applicable. I don't see any real opposition to the merge, we're talking more about how to accomplish the merge, so we can start copying the list over to the top table as a first pass, and then delete the list page when we're doneIan Bailey 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've copied over about 1/3 of the frameworks... once this is done, I'll delete/redirect the "List of" page. Ian Bailey 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can merge the "List" page into the first section of the "Comparison" page, which contains lots of easily verifiable information. Then we can compare frameworks in more detailed criteria when applicable. I don't see any real opposition to the merge, we're talking more about how to accomplish the merge, so we can start copying the list over to the top table as a first pass, and then delete the list page when we're doneIan Bailey 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I vote that both tables be merged to one document but kept as individual tables -- Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.133.154 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- One other problem is that the List page contains many "sub" frameworks that are not intended to solve the same problems as the "big" frameworks mentioned on this page. Including them here would lead to lots of blank columns that are not applicable to particular frameworks. One example of this is the various Ajax/JavaScript frameworks, that would not normally implement an ORM layer. Perhaps we could have a separate table for each area? (Database access, Javascript, ...) Ian Bailey 12:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia. I included Gluon to the list and somebody removed it. I do not why so I put it back. If it is a procedural issue please let me know what I am doing wrong. Gluon is not a commercial product but released under GPL. You can check its popularity by googling "enterprise web framework. User: massimodipierro
- I have removed Gluon from some places, but there are a couple people removing frameworks for notability issues. Generally, there is some consensus to only include frameworks that are notable in some way. While this hasn't been set in stone, most of the frameworks have an individual article on Wikipedia before they are added to this list. Also, Gluon's Goolge Group has under 100 postings for the past two months, there is no public repository (so I cannot verify how much code is under development) and there are no outside sites that mention Gluon besides ones that have user-submitted content (Digg, del.icio.us). I don't think Gluon is a notable framework at this point in time. Ian Bailey 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Model-View-Controller
The slogan seems to exist in every single row, judging from cell colours. I wonder if anyone would dare not call his work an MVC framework. So, do we still need this column? I would remove it as uninformative. Also some rows mention the ActiveRecorn pattern instead, which I do not understand. What the data access approach has to do with layer separation? viny.tell // 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- When I first added this column, the intent was to document the underlying technologies, however, this may not be applicable to all frameworks. I have already pulled out the Push/Pull property, and I have no problem with making this column more explicit. I do agree that any column with all Yes entries is various redundantIan Bailey 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- What about changing MVC to architecture type with MVC as an option. There are other types of patters/architectures like PAC that are common but MVC is the current buzz word. This may be more fair to other technologies and better represent the intent of this page.Matt Farina Friday, April 4, 2008 at 14:25:03 UTC —Preceding comment was added at 14:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Grails
I'm not sure why it says "ActiveRecord" for the "MVC framework" column for Grails. I don't believe it is a correct representation of Grails architecture. Then again, I don't think I understand the meaning of this column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Languages-based Framework comparision
It would be useful to compare frameworks based on the languages. Many people just want to compare, for example, java, or, python based frameworks. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
