I'm trying to get java and javascript to talk to each other. Ideally, I would want them to share objects, but it would be enough that a java-application calls a javascript function. I've tried Rhino but struggle a bit, because it doesn't seem able to call functions in a running js-engine (maybe it can I just couldn't figure out how?). Any tips on how to make this link happen? Performance is an issue but not extremely critical.
Basically; I have a web application that uses javascript to update the content of the page dynamically. The content of the page is created through java-code, so I need a way for the java-code to tell the javascript when something changes and what changes.
Thanks
LiveConnect seems to do the trick, but applet would be a security-leak. Would Nashorn in Java8 do the same as Rhino or will it be able to keep a running JVM and listen to calls?
There's no way to make the Java back end and JavaScript talk directly to each other the way you imply you want to do. The only way to make them communicate is through AJAX or WebSockets.
Related
I have a project that is built on Applets and that also comprises of Corba calls to backend (which is in C language). Now I need to remove Applets and convert it into JSP and Javascript combination. But the code seems to be complex as it also consist of backend calls. I am facing problem in figuring out what is to be converted in JSP and what in Javascript.
If I convert all the applet logic in Javascript, how will I pass the javascript data to the Java objects to pass it as input for corba calls.
I can't implement all the logic in JSP as the existing logic depends on the dynamic change of data by user.
I tried various links but couldn't find the proper solution to my problem.
I read somewhere that Google Web Toolkit (GWT) might help me converting Java Logic to Javascript, but couldn't figure out what exactly needs to be done for that.
Can anyone guide me how should I start and what exactly should I do to complete my project?
First the bad news. There is no generic and magic solution that can convert your legacy (as you are describing it) into modern n-tiers web application.
I can suggest you the following steps.
decide what kind of client and server side technologies you are going to use and learn them to become familiar enough to start coding.
learn your legacy code and re-design it. Decide which parts of the code must be re-written, what you can use as-is and what you have to change and/or re-package.
To choose client side technology try to search for "client side javascript frameworks" or something like this. Popularity of GWT that you mentioned is going down now. The most modern framework these days are AngularJS.
Concerning server side technologies I personally prefer Spring but you can take a look on Guice and EJB too. You can also implement whole server side as as collection of servlets. It is up to you.
Start learning this amazing world and come back with more concrete questions. Good luck.
I'm a pretty skilled java programmer that has dabbled in web development but I find that I'm much better at doing desktop based stuff than I am at anything related to web development. I've been trying to find an easy way of porting some of my desktop apps to run in browser but can't seem to find anything. I guess what I'm looking for is something similar to an applet but they a largely unsupported and get more buggy by the day. Is there anything similar that would allow me to keep my desktop style mindset and still run in browser or should I just break down and rewrite the whole thing in rails or another common web platform.
Java WebStart has been mentioned by others - It's a technology that aids redistribution of Java applications that then have the full rights of desktop applications, but they also have auto-update support built in. It's basically a launcher that fetches a JAR from the internet and runs it as a desktop application. These don't run within the browser.
Applets are an old technology that can be embedded directly into the web-page. They are not buggy, but they have several security restrictions. Also, the support is steadily declining because of the amount of critical bugs found in the technology. Desktop users that want applet support typically don't have trouble ensuring it, however. Currently, both the Chrome and the Java platform itself issue a warning before an applet is allowed to run - and that assumes the Java Runtime Environment is already installed.
Google Web Toolkit is a framework that allows creating single-page applications in Java, which are then compiled to Javascript. GWT handles multiple things behind the scenes, including server-client communication, localisation and internationalisation, and its own layout engine.
When translating an existing application to GWT, you need to:
separate the code into a part that runs on the client and a part that runs on the server. The server does not have direct access to the user, and the client does not have direct access to the database. If your application does not use centralised storage, it probably can run entirely within the web browser. Since client-server communication happens over the internet, you should reduce it to the minimum.
translate the front-end to GWT widgets. Forget Swing or AWT - they are impossible to compile efficiently to Javascript.
remove dependency on other Java classes that the GWT does not know how to translate into Javascript in the client part of the application. A large part of java.util. is supported but none of javax. (as of Jan 2014). The GWT site hosts the list of supported Java classes. Also, Javascript's regexes are less powerful than those of Java. Lookbehinds, in particular, are not supported. The server-side is a full-blown Java environment, but remember - you want to reduce the server-client communication to the minimum.
But, the most common strategy is to code the client side directly in Javascript.
Javascript is a language very similar in syntax to C/C++ and Java. It uses curly braces to denote blocks of code, and it uses semicolons to separate statements (though Javascript features automatic semicolon insertion, sometimes it understands two lines as a single statement if the first line is not terminated by a semicolon. Its data types include numbers (double-precision floating point), strings, booleans, two types of null, plain objects (which are basically hash-maps [string -> x]), arrays (untyped and dynamically extensible), regexes and functions (named or anonymous), all of which have their own literal syntax.
When coding in Javascript, your mindset should be:
Javascript is single-threaded and event-driven. You don't have to worry about concurrency issues, but you cannot say "now wait for x" either. Since Your Java code should be event-driven as well, this should not be an issue.
Lots of things in Javascript are asynchronous. Want to know something from the user? You should paint a dialog, and attach event handlers to its components. Want to get the user's GPS position? Ask for permission, passing it an event handler for when the user decides if the permission should be granted, from which you ask for the position, which also takes an event handler as an argument. Talking to the server? Asynchronous. Do you want to display something before doing a long calculation? You have to actually wait a little before you start computing. Ecmascript 6 improves the syntax a lot, but it's not yet supported in modern browsers.
Browsers only let you do so much. Disk access? Only to a file or folder the user explicitly points to. Clipboard access? The only reliable way is copy/paste into a textbox. Talking to a foreign webserver? Only if that webserver explicitly lets you (and lot of them don't even know how to). Of course, "foreign" includes a different sub-domain, different port number or a different protocol (http:// or https://). Desktop notifications? Geolocation? Ask for permissions first. Java applets have comparable security restrictions, and for the very same reason.
In Java, everything is a class. In Javascript, you can enjoy bare functions without any class. A typical event handler is just an anonymous function that you pass as an argument to a library function. Also, you can have anonymous objects using a very conscise syntax. This makes Javascript code much denser than that of Java and with very few classes, if any. Object Oriented Programming is still possible in Javascript, but much less pronounced.
When layouting your display, you need to think in terms of HTML and CSS. The best approach is to modify only the document structure (adding/removing elements or HTML classes) using the Document Object Model (DOM), and leave all CSS in an external file. In any case, you need to know CSS enough to be able to layout your page. Modern browsers support canvas, but it has no built-in layouting engine - its closest Java relative is JCanvas - just a blank area where you can draw graphics primitives - or a WebGL canvas - where you can place triangles in a 3D space.
When designing your own API, you need to know which operations might need to be asynchronous. If they are, either take a function as an argument (a callback), or return an object that does (a promise).
Except for the this variable, Javascript is function-scoped and lexically scoped and has closures. If a variable exists in a surrounding scope, it can be read from and written to - even from within a function that is only defined in that scope and called much later. In Java, you can't close over non-final function-local variables.
However, you need to be careful about timing - don't think you can just assign to a variable within a callback and use it outside. When you try to use it, it won't have been assigned to yet. Many have tried to cheat the time this way, and failed.
When the user leaves your page, it's a game over. If you want to remember anything past that point, you need to store it somewhere, be it cookies (very little space, outdated API), localStorage (decent amount of space, not supported by very old browsers) or the server (lots of space, but talking to the server when your page is being shut down is tricky).
the DOM API is often criticised, but there are several frameworks and libraries that ease the usage of it, of which the most popular is jQuery, which also handles browser inconsistencies, improves the AJAX API, event delegation (you can't attach an event handler to an element that doesn't yet exist) and includes an animation engine (though modern CSS is almost as powerful and often easier to use).
I think java web start could help you
http://www.java.com/it/download/faq/java_webstart.xml
I suggest you to take a look at Java Web Start. It offers you a possibility to start your application software for the Java Platform directly from the Internet using a web browser.
For more details see: Java Web Start
Nowadays Web Start is not a good option since, the user needs to have JVM installed and with all the vulnerabilities buzz around Java is more difficult to convince users to download it. The latest versions of JDK 1.8+ include scripts to pack your application along the jvm runtime in just one installer: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/deploy/
For using your application in a browser like an applet, you can use Bck2Brwsr or TeaVM both can run java applications in a browser without Java Plugin. Bck2Brwsr also uses Java Plug in if it is available.
You can also use GWT to compile your Java application to JavaScript. Note: Swing is not supported.
Regards
I am developing an client-server application where client gets updates every second (lets say 1000 fields) . I also need to draw waveforms from at client side.Server is already existing.
For this type of application which will be better ? GWT with intermediate server or Java Web Start which directly connects to existing server in terms of performance, difficulty to code ?
I don't see that much difference among them. I'd even say that they are separate things. Webstart is how your client will get the app: from some site.
Webstart is a bit easier to mantain, since your client will get it everytime it starts.
Deploying a stand-alone can be a bit harder, depending on your infrastructure.
Performance: just the "download" part of the webstart can be a bit heavier. I thinkg performance is almost the same, after ir began to execute.
Difficulty to code: it's just a matter of experience. Your code in both them will be almost the same, since they'll do the same things.
Mantain / upgrade : easier to mantain and upgrade the Webstart than installing a client on each machine.
Consider using a JFreeChart DynamicTimeSeriesCollection, seen here, distributed via java-web-start. A thousand fields in a scroll pane is possible, but JList or JTable would be considerably more efficient.
If the server already exists, the issue is more about the best way to connect it to the client, than whether or not to use GWT. For example, if you want server-push rather than client-pull for the updates, that changes things somewhat. However, assuming you need to do some vector graphics, and pull information from a server (I'll assume that you can use either JSON or XML to get server information), you could use several different JavaScript toolkits to do this directly, without Java or GWT needed at all.
For this type of application, Dojo would be one fair option. It has fairly good portable vector graphics, it's pure JavaScript and it is finally at a stage where documentation is OK. GWT would be a useful bet if the server didn't already exist, and where you wanted a decent set of controls usable on the client side. But for rich graphics, I'd look at JavaScript options like Dojo, Raphael, or even jQuery. Dojo does support line charts, and that might be a good basis for waveforms.
Some of this depends on the nature of the server. If it uses a different protocol from HTTP, or doesn't really provide easy JSON or XML access, you're probably better looking at a client-server package that does make the bridge between client and server simple.
GWT might be an option here, but it is designed more for robustness than for very fast development. And if you are fitting with an existing protocol, it could be a fair amount of work.
How exactly or what exactly does Direct Web Remoting (DWR) do?
While I have already gone through the official site http://directwebremoting.org/
I wanted to understand in simple language..
Specifically I have following questions;
1. While engine.js is standard Javascript library, how exactly does it help in including that in our app ?
2. What is so special about DWR that cannot be done by normal Javascript / AJAx combination?
Thank you.
OK, I've only had a brief look at DWR and I was wondering the same thing. As far as I can gather DWR builds and includes on your page some javascript that mirrors your server-side java. It will generate client-side proxies that you can call in your javascript. So instead of using jquerys $.ajax(...) command and specifying the url, data type, data, etc, you can just use RemoveObj.doSomeStuff(...) and it'll do the actual AJAX request for you, behind the scenes.
This is basically what ASP.NET does too when you declare a [WebMethod]. Its simply a shortcut and might save time with maintenance, e.g. if your urls change I suspect DWR will update its client-side code too.
My only issue with this is that it seems to pollute the namespace.
To actually answer your question it does nothing you can't do with normal javascript and servlets.
Thinking outside of the box here...
What possible basic approaches could be taken in an effort to create a Flex component that could run Java?
I know I can easily use flex to browse to or launch a Java app, but there are things I can only do if I can run the Java from WITHIN an MXML Component.
I the strictest sense, I know it's not impossible (ie: if you had all the source code for flex and for the jvm), but what's the least impractical means to this end?
Edit:
Lots of people are interested in the reason WHY someone might want to do this. I see it as irrelevant to HOW to do it, but here goes: I have over 100 proprietary pixel-reading windows programs that I could port to Mac in this way, much easier than any other way. But instead of arguing the premises, the winning answer will ignore the reasons why, and focus on the HOW.
Showcase your creativity.
This sounds crazy insane to me. My answer is to not go down this route. It may be a fun technical challenge for fun; but has little practical value that I can see.
Answer the question, Why would you want to run a JVM inside a Flex app?
Also, How would you use a Flex App to browse or launch a Java App? As best I understood, the security sandbox of the browser prevents you from launching other local applications.
I don't believe you are correct about not being able to accomplish certain things you "can only do if I can run the Java from WITHIN an MXML Component". With proper communication set up, you can have the Applet and the SWF simply communicating with each other through an external set of processes.
The easiest way to accomplish this is to "fake it". Load a Java Applet (This should be possible by use of the SWF's ExternalInterface API -- generate the Object tag and add it to the HTML around the swf. To make this even more convincing, use CSS to have to Applet appear "on top" of the swf. ) and have it communicate with the original swf through JavaScript calls. If that is not possible, then it may be possible to have the Java Applet generate some form of pseudo-server which the swf could then communicate with.
If neither of those work, then there is always the SWF bytearray syntax. It would need to load a ByteArray, manipulate the internal data, and then send it... somehow.
A while back I prototyped something like this. I exposed a window / native app via a VNC server and then used an open source VNC client library to connect to the VNC server. It was totally hacky but it worked. Performance was not great but was usable. Here is the Flash VNC client library I used:
http://www.wizhelp.com/flashlight-vnc/index.html
I'm with Flextras, you need to explain why before a reasonable solution can be proposed.
Unreasonable solution:
Implement the jvm in AS3. Read jars in as bytearrays. Pass the bytearrays to you new jvm.
Reasons for unreasonableness:
Implementing even a partial jvm would be at least thousands of man hours of work.
Running a virtual machine inside of Flash's already (relatively) slow vm would be like riding a golf cart that's being towed by a tortoise: either one by itself would be faster.
You can interface between Air & a Java app using merapi (although that's just communication, not actually running the api inside air)