Rapidoid – No-Bullshit Web Framework for Java
rapidoid.org
rapidoid.org
*The low-level HTTP API provides access to the extremely fast Rapidoid HTTP
server implemented from scratch on top of Java NIO.*
Thats quite an achievement, considering that Netty is very well optimized. Maybe the off-heap output buffer gives it that edge?Lots of people have done so, if you have the skills and determination. It also helps if you focus on that, instead of completeness, like Netty probably does.
Is this because it allows the GC to be avoided, or because it allows value types to be emulated?
(Netty is well-optimized, but quite bloated as well).
The performance optimization is based on: - using off-heap input and output buffers, - minimizing the number of objects that are created when parsing the input and generating the output, - using object pools to reuse the objects that must be created, - using thread-local helper data structures on the I/O threads to avoid synchronization and object instantiation.
Rapidoid reminds me a little bit the Spark Framework (not Apache Spark, very unlucky name, though) which I use for fast prototyping and services.
http://www.ninjaframework.org/
But the leader of the recent Java web frameworks really seem to be Vert.x ( http://vertx.io/ ) which I have started to use recently and like a lot so far.
I am surprised that I hadn't heard of Rapidoid before. +1 to HN
Love the easy, clean API - it's great for a reasonably sized project.
If you have to recompile every time you change something, you're going to have a baaad time.
Github link https://github.com/rapidoid/rapidoid
You also forgot to mention what I need to import in order to have the "On" object.
Maybe you can include something like this template on your getting started page.
import org.rapidoid.http.fast.*;
// wget https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/rapidoid/rapidoid-http-fast/5.0.7/rapidoid-http-fast-5.0.7.jar
public class App
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
On.get ("/size").json ("msg", msg -> msg.length ());
}
}
Also needed would be a sample pom.xml file. I had a problem with java compiler version being older and unable to complie lambdas.My sample pom.xml (feel free to use it if you like) is:
<project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/maven-v4_0_0.xsd">
<modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
<groupId>com.microservices.app</groupId>
<artifactId>rest-app</artifactId>
<packaging>jar</packaging>
<version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
<name>rest-app</name>
<url>http://maven.apache.org</url>
<properties>
<java.version>1.8</java.version>
<maven.compiler.source>1.8</maven.compiler.source>
<maven.compiler.target>1.8</maven.compiler.target>
</properties>
<build>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-assembly-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.6</version>
<configuration>
<descriptorRefs>
<descriptorRef>jar-with-dependencies</descriptorRef>
</descriptorRefs>
</configuration>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>assemble-all</id>
<phase>package</phase>
<goals>
<goal>single</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</build>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>junit</groupId>
<artifactId>junit</artifactId>
<version>3.8.1</version>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.rapidoid</groupId>
<artifactId>rapidoid-web</artifactId>
<version>5.0.5</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
</project>
Then I can run the test service using: java -cp target/rest-app-1.0-SNAPSHOT-jar-with-dependencies.jar AppI totally agree a tutorial like this is needed, and I am going to add such documentation soon...
The point was that if a new framework aims to capture enough attention and traction to be a sustainable alternative to the incumbents it has to support websocket .
The only part I think where websockets enable truly new functionality is displaying of live data and push notifications.
Feature bloat/mission creep sucks.
Because most apps are being built in the conditions of uncertainty and the development team doesn't know if the edge case will become a business requirement.
>Feature bloat/mission creep sucks.
Unqualified, this statement is nothing more than a thought terminating cliche. Whatever constitutes "bloat" depends on the context and preferences of a decision maker.
Same goes for whatever constitutes a necessity. I seriously challenge the idea that "websockets" are a must have.
Case in point, their lack haven't prevented tons of PHP, Ruby, Python, etc frameworks (all the tons of them that are not async/event based and can't handle websockets well if at all), from succeeding.
Heck, 1/4 of the web is based on Wordpress (including players like CNN, Forbes, Sony, and NYT blogs) and that doesn't even touch websockets, not to mention not being a proper CMS/framework in lots of other ways.
Django is adding websockets support using the $150K grant from Mozilla. Rails is adding websockets support in the next version with ActionCable. Phoenix and Play frameworks have great support for websockets. Websockets are an integral part of node ecosystem.
Your websockets "challenge" is not based on facts.
Note the future tense. By which time Rapidoid might or might not have them as well.
>Your websockets "challenge" is not based on facts.
No challenge at all. Just plain old reality. Most successful frameworks don't support websockets at the moment, and are still widely used.
The fact that Node and some Java frameworks do (as does Python with Tornado and co) doesn't change that fact. Note also how I never said there don't exist frameworks that DO support websockets, so I don't get why you mention these to me.
The part about knowing when the connection has dropped is actually really interesting...
You'd really be surprised. Not everybody moves or even has a use case for a websocket-based backend.