Dashboard > Magnolia Development > ... > Genuine Overview > Genuine - Decision Table - Server-Side Technologies
Genuine - Decision Table - Server-Side Technologies Log In View a printable version of the current page.

Added by Vivian Steller , last edited by Philipp Bracher on May 14, 2008  (view change)
Labels: 
(None)

Server-side Technologies: Decision Table

Weight : one star is less important (minimum), three stars is most important (maximum)
Score / : double is worst, double is best

Technology/Attribute (Weight)
JSF (Score)
Webservices (Score)
Result JSF
Result WS
  JSF RI + Facelets + any component library Apache CXF (formerly XFire) + ExtJS
   
License CDDL, LGPL Apache 2.0, LGPL 6 6
Standards JSR-127, JSR-252, upcoming JSR-299 JSR-181, JSR-224, JSR-311 4 2
Server-side requirements Java 5 (w/o Facelets: JSP 2.1, Servlet 2.5; with Facelets: JSP 2.0, Servlet 2.4) Java 5 2 2
De-coupling GUI & Magnolia in same webapp Separated Magnolia Server and GUI webapps -2 4
Testing Capabilities managed beans are well testable, client-side part not services themselves well testable, client-side part not 3 -3
Integration with other systems can easily be deployed together with other JSP/JSF applications
but requires deployment in same web application
Webservices fully interoperable,  can be completely decoupled web application -4 2
Alternative GUIs (Flex, Eclipse, XUI) always tied to thin-client always rich-client or thick client -2 4
Re-usable/base for other projects
(e.g. customer projects)
JSF based AJAX capabilities can support template development in projects yes, for service integration and AJAX 1 -1
Time to integrate medium (setup similar to JSP) high (complete webservice stack) -3
-6
Component development hard (requires implementing a bunch of files) easy (sub-classing existing ones from ExtJS is sufficient) -3 3
Developer experience yes (use of custom taglibs is easy and sufficient) extensive JavaScript knowledge available 2 2
Learning curve medium (JSP taglibs, JavaBeans) high (many different technologies: WS*, JavaScript, JSON) -2 -2
Documentation very good, many resources (specifications, books, articles), RichFaces: medium CXF: low, JavaScript libraries: low 6 3
Tool Support medium to good WS: medium, JavaScript: medium -3 -3
Support agreements available only for some component libraries (e.g. ICEFaces) WS: no, JavaScript: yes (e.g. ExtJS) -2 2
Community medium (but not biased, Richfaces probably biggest) huge, CXF very active, ExtJS very active 3 6
Maturity JSF spec & RI: start 2001, JSF 1.1 2004, JSF 1.2 2006; RichFaces: WS spec: start 2003, 2006/2007; CXF: 2005 (started as XFire; Apache since 2007) 4 4
Result     10 25
Powered by a free Atlassian Confluence Open Source Project License granted to Magnolia International. Evaluate Confluence today.
Powered by Atlassian Confluence 2.7, the Enterprise Wiki. Bug/feature request - Atlassian news - Contact administrators