Develop Reference

Java to Clojure rewrite

I have just been asked by my company to rewrite a largish (50,000 single lines of code) Java application (a web app using JSP and servlets) in Clojure. Has anyone else got tips as to what I should watch out for?
Please bear in mind that I know both Java AND Clojure quite well.
Update
I did the rewrite and it went into production. It's quite strange as the rewrite ended up going so fast that it was done in about 6 weeks. Because a lot of functionality wasn't needed still it ended up more like 3000 lines of Clojure.
I hear they are happy with the system and its doing exactly what they wanted. The only downside is that the guy maintaining the system had to learn Clojure from scratch, and he was dragged into it kicking and screaming. I did get a call from him the other day saying he loved Lisp now though.. funny :)
Also, I should give a good mention to Vaadin. Using Vaadin probably accounted for as much of the time saved and shortness of the code as Clojure did.. Vaadin is still the top web framework I have ever used, although now I'm learning ClojureScript in anger! (Note that both Vaadin and ClojureScript use Google's GUI frameworks underneath the hood.)

The biggest "translational issue" will probably be going from a Java / OOP methodology to a Clojure / functional programming paradigm.
In particular, instead of having mutable state within objects, the "Clojure way" is to clearly separate out mutable state and develop pure (side-effect free) functions. You probably know all this already :-)
Anyway, this philosophy tends to lead towards something of a "bottom up" development style where you focus the initial efforts on building the right set of tools to solve your problem, then finally plug them together at the end. This might look something like this
Identify key data structures and transform them to immutable Clojure map or record definitions. Don't be afraid to nest lots of immutable maps - they are very efficient thanks to Clojure's persistent data structures. Worth watching this video to learn more.
Develop small libraries of pure, business logic oriented functions that operate on these immutable structures (e.g. "add an item to shopping cart"). You don't need to do all of these at once since it is easy to add more later, but it helps to do a few early on to facilitate testing and prove that your data structures are working..... either way at this point you can actually start writing useful stuff interactively at the REPL
Separately develop data access routines that can persist these structures to/from the database or network or legacy Java code as needed. The reason to keep this very separate is that you don't want persistence logic tied up with your "business logic" functions. You might want to look at ClojureQL for this, though it's also pretty easy to wrap any Java persistence code that you like.
Write unit tests (e.g. with clojure.test) that cover all the above. This is especially important in a dynamic language like Clojure since a) you don't have as much of a safety net from static type checking and b) it helps to be sure that your lower level constructs are working well before you build too much on top of them
Decide how you want to use Clojure's reference types (vars, refs, agents and atoms) to manage each part mutable application-level state. They all work in a similar way but have different transactional/concurrency semantics depending on what you are trying to do. Refs are probably going to be your default choice - they allow you to implement "normal" STM transactional behaviour by wrapping any code in a (dosync ...) block.
Select the right overall web framework - Clojure has quite a few already but I'd strongly recommend Ring - see this excellent video "One Ring To Bind Them" plus either Fleet or Enlive or Hiccup depending on your templating philosophy. Then use this to write your presentation layer (with functions like "translate this shopping cart into an appropriate HTML fragment")
Finally, write your application using the above tools. If you've done the above steps properly, then this will actually be the easy bit because you will be able to build the entire application by appropriate composition of the various components with very little boilerplate.
This is roughly the sequence that I would attack the problem since it broadly represents the order of dependencies in your code, and hence is suitable for a "bottom up" development effort. Though of course in good agile / iterative style you'd probably find yourself pushing forward early to a demonstrable end product and then jumping back to earlier steps quite frequently to extend functionality or refactor as needed.
p.s. If you do follow the above approach, I'd be fascinated to hear how many lines of Clojure it takes to match the functionality of 50,000 lines of Java
Update: Since this post was originally written a couple of extra tools/libraries have emerged that are in the "must check out" category:
Noir - web framework that builds on top of Ring.
Korma - a very nice DSL for accessing SQL databases.

What aspects of Java does your current project include? Logging, Database transactions, Declarative transactions/EJB, web layer (you mentioned JSP, servlets) etc. I have noticed the Clojure eco-system has various micro-frameworks and libraries with a goal to do one task, and do it well. I'd suggest evaluate libraries based on your need (and whether it would scale in large projects) and make an informed decision. (Disclaimer: I am the author of bitumenframework) Another thing to note is the build process - if you need a complex setup (dev, testing, staging, prod) you may have to split the project into modules and have the build process scripted for ease.

I found the most difficult part was thinking about the database. Do some tests to find the right tools you want to use there.

Experiences with "language converters"?

I have read a few articles mentioning converters from one language to another.
I'm a bit more than skeptical about the use of such kind of tools. Does anyone know or have experiences let's say about Visual Basic to Java or vs converters? Just one example to pick
http://www.tvobjects.com/products/products.html, claims to be the "world leader" or so in that aspect, However if read this:
http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/active-grid.html
There the author states:
"The consensus of MySQL users is that automated conversion tools for MS Access do not work. For example, tools that translate existing Access applications to Java often result in 80% complete solutions where finishing the last 20% of the work takes longer than starting from scratch."
Well we know we need 80% of the time to implement the first 80% functionality and another 80% of the time for the other 20 %....
So has anyone tried such tools and found them to be worthwhile?

Tried? No, actually built (more than one) language convertor.
Here's one I (and my coworkers) built for the B2 Spirit Stealth Bomber to convert the mission software, coded in a legacy language, JOVIAL, into maintainable C code, with 100% automated conversion. One of the requirements was that we were NOT allowed to see the actual source code. No joke.
You are right: if you get only a medium high conversion rate (e.g., 70-80%), the effort to finish the conversion is still very significant if indeed you can do it at all. We target 95%+ and do better when told to try harder as was the case for the B2. The only reason people accept medium high rate converters is because they can't find (or won't fund!) a better one, insist on starting now, and accept the fact that converting it this way may be painful (usually they don't know how much) but is in fact less painful than rebuilding it from scratch. (I happen to agree with this assessment: in general, projects that try to recode a large system from scratch usually fail and conversions using medium high conversion rate tools don't have as high a failure rate.)
There are lots of bad conversion tools out there, something slapped together with a mountain of PERL code doing regexes on text strings, or some YACC-based parser with code generation essentially one-to-one for each statement in the compilation unit. The former are built by people who had a conversion dropped on them out of the sky. The latter are often built by well-intentioned engineers that don't have decent compiler background.
For a singularly bad example, see my response to this SO question about COBOL migration: Experience migrating legacy Cobol/PL1 to Java, which is exactly a direct statement translator... producing the stuff that gave rise to the term "JOBOL".
To get such high-accuracy conversion rates, you need high-quality parsers, and means to build high-quality translation rules that preserve semantics, and optimize for target-language properties and special cases. In essence, you need what amounts to configurable compiler technology. The reason we succeed, IMHO, is our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit, which was designed to do this job. (I'm the architect; check out my SO icon/bio).
Lots of careful testing helps, too.
DMS "knows" what the compiler knows about code, by virtue of having a compiler-like front end for the language of interest, and having the ability to build ASTs, symbol tables, control and data flows, call graphs. It uses much of the compiler technology that the compiler community spent the last half-century inventing, because that stuff has been proven to be useful in translation!
DMS knows more than most compilers know, because it can read/analyze/transform the entire application at once; most compilers stick to single compilation units. Thus one can code translation rules that depend on the entire application as opposed to just the current statement. We often add problem- or application-specific knowledge to improve the translation. This often shows up when converting special features of a language, or calls on libraries, where one must recognize the library calls as special idioms, and translate them to calls on compositions of target libraries and language constructs.
This capability is used to build translators (e.g., the JOVIAL translator), or domain-specific code generators.
More often we build complex automated software engineering tools that solve problems specific to customers, such as program analysis tools (dead code, duplicate code, style-broken code, metrics, architecture extraction, ...), and mass change tools (platform [not langauge] migrations, data layer insertion, API replacement, ...)

It seems to me, as is almost always the case with MS-ACCESS questions having tags that attract the wider StackOverflow population, that the people answering are missing the key question here, which I read as:
Are there any tools that can successfully convert an Access application to any other platform?
And the answer is
ABSOLUTELY NOT
The reason for that is simply that tools in the same family that use similar models for the UI objects (e.g., VB6) lack so many things that Access provides by default (how do you convert an Access continuous subform to VB6 and not lose functionality?). And other platforms don't even share the same core model as VB6 and Access, so those have even more hurdles to clear.
The cited MySQL article is quite interesting, but it really confuses the problems that come with incompetently-developed apps vs. the problems that come with the development tools being used. A bad data schema is not inherent to Access -- it's inherent to [most] novice database users. But the articles seems to attribute this problem to Access.
And entirely overlooks the possibility of fixing the schema, upsizing it to MySQL and keeping the front end in Access, which is by far the easiest approach to the problem.
This is exactly what I expect from people who just don't get Access -- they don't even consider that Access as front end to a securable, large-capacity server database engine can be a superior solution to the problem.
That article doesn't even really consider conversion of an Access app, and there's good reason for that. All the tools that I've seen that claim to convert Access applications (to whatever platform) either convert nothing but data (in which case they don't convert the app at all -- morons!), or convert the front end structure slavishly, with a 1:1 correspondence between UI objects in the Access application and in the target app.
This doesn't work.
Access's application design is specific to itself, and other platforms don't support the same set of features. Thus, there has to be translation of Access features into a working substitute for the original feature in the converted application. This is not something that can be done in an automated fashion, in my opinion.
Secondly, when contemplating converting an Access app for deployment in the web browser, the whole application model is different, i.e., from stateful to stateless, and so it's not just a matter of a few Access features that are unsupported, but of a completely different fundamental model of how the UI objects interact with the data. Perhaps a 100% unbound Access app could be relatively easily be converted to a browser-based implementation, but how many of those are there? It would mean an Access app that uses no subforms whatsoever (since they can't be unbound), and an app that uses only a handful of events from the rich event model (most of which work only with bound forms/controls). In short, a 100% unbound Access app would be one that fights against the whole Access development paradigm. Anyone who thinks they want to build an unbound app in Access really shouldn't be using Access in the first place, as the whole point of Access is the bound forms/controls! If you eliminate that, you've thrown out the majority of Access's RAD advantage over other development platforms, and gained almost nothing in return (other than enormous code complexity).
To build an app for deployment in the web browser that accomplishes the same tasks as an Access applications requires from-the-ground-up redesign of the application UI and workflow. There is no conversion or translation that will work because the successful Access application model is antithetical to the successful web application model.
Of course, all of this changes with Access 2010 and Sharepoint Server 2010 with Access Services. In that case, you can build your app in Access (using web objects) and deploy on Sharepoint for users to run it in the browser. The results are functionally 100% equivalent (and 90% visually), and run on all browsers (no IE-specific dependencies here).
So, starting this June, the cheapest way to convert an Access app for deployment in the browser may very well be to upgrade to A2010, convert the design to use all web objects, and then deploy with Sharepoint. That's not a trivial project, as Access web objects have a limited set of features in comparison to client objects (and no VBA, for instance, so you have to learn the new macros, which are much more powerful and safe than the old ones, so that's not the terrible hardship it may seem for those familiar with Access's legacy macros), but it would likely be much less work than a full-scale redesign for deployment on the web.
The other thing is that it won't require any retraining for end users (insofar as the web-object version is the same as the original client version), as it will be the same in the Access client as in the web browser.
So, in short, I'd say conversion is a chimera, and almost always not worth the effort. I'm agreeing with the cited sentiment, in fact (even if I have a lot of problems with the other comments from that source). But I'd also caution that the desire for conversion is often misguided and misses out on cheaper, easier and better solutions that don't require wholesale replacement of the Access app from top to bottom. Very often the dissatisfaction with Jet/ACE as data store confuses people into thinking they have to replace the Access application as well. And it's true that many user-developed Access apps are filled with terrible, unmaintainable compromises and are held together with chewing gum and bailing wire. But a badly-designed Access application can be improved in conjunction with the back-end upsizing andrevision of the data schema -- it doesn't have to be discarded.
That doesn't mean it's easy -- it's very often not. As I tell clients all the time, it's usually easier to build a new house than to remodel an old one. But one of the reasons we remodel old houses is because they have irreplaceable characteristics that we don't want to lose. It's very often the case that an Access app implicitly includes a lot of business rules and modelling of workflows that should not be lost in a new app (the old Netscape conundrum, pace Joel Spolsky). These things may not be obvious to the outside developer trying to port to a different platform, but for the end user, if the app produces results that are off by a penny in comparison to the old app, they'll be unhappy (and probably should be, since it may mean that other aspects of the app are not producing reliable results, either).
Anyway, I've rambled on for too long, but my opinion is that conversion never works except for the most trivial apps (or for ones that were designed to be converted, e.g., a 100% unbound Access app). I'm all for revision in place of replacment.
But, of course, that's how I make my living, i.e., fixing Access apps.

A couple of issues that effect the success or failure of cross-language conversion are the relative semantic richness of the languages, and their semantic models.
Translation from C++ to C should be relatively easy, but translation of C to idiomatic C++ would be next to impossible because that would be next to impossible to automatically turn a procedural program into an OO program.
Translation of Java to C would be relatively simple, though handling storage management would be messy. Translation of C into Java would be next to impossible if the C program did funky pointer arithmetic or casting between integers and different kinds of pointer.
Translation of a functional language to an imperative language would be much easy though the result would probably be inefficient, an non-idiomatic. Translation of an imperative language to a functional language is probably beyond the state of the art .... unless you implement an interpreter for the imperative language in the functional language.
What this means is that some translators are necessarily going to be more successful than others in terms of:
completeness and accuracy of translation, and
readability and maintainability of the resulting code.

Things You Should Never Do, Part I by Joel Spolsky
"....They did it by making the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make:
They decided to rewrite the code from scratch."
I have a list of MS Access converters on my website. I've never heard anything good about any of them in any postings in the Access related newsgroups I read on a daily basis. And I read a lot of postings on a daily basis.
Also note that there is a significant amount of functionality in Access, such as bound continuous forms or subforms, that is more work to reproduce in other systems. Not necessarily a lot of work but more work. And more troubles when it comes time to distribute and install the app.

I've used an automated converter from C# to Visual Basic.NET. It worked pretty well except for adding some unnecessary If True statements.
I've also attempted to use Shed Skin to convert Python-to-C++, but it didn't work because of its lack of support for new-style division.

I've used tools for converting a VB6 Project into VB.Net - which you would hope would be perhaps one of the simpler examples of this sort of thing. My experience was that everything had to be checked, in fine detail, and half the stuff was missing / wrong.
Certainly I would recommend a migration by hand, or depending on the language you're targetting, I would consider a complete rewrite if this gives you a chance to make major improvements to your codebase.
Martin

I have only tried free and basic paid for converters. But the main problem is that it is very very hard to have confidence that the conversion is entirely successful.
Usually they are best used to hand convert code section at a time, where you review each piece of code. Often in my experience a rewrite instead of a conversion turns out to be a better option.

Intelligent search and generation of Java code, preferrably using Python?

Basically, I do lots of one-off code generation, large-scale refactorings, etc. etc. in Java.
My tool language of choice is Python, but I'll take whatever solutions you can offer.
Here is a simplified illustration of what I would like, in a pseudocode
Generating an implementation for an interface
search within my project:
for each Interface as iName:
write class(name=iName+"Impl", implements=iName)
search within the body of iName:
for each Method as mName:
write method(name=mName, body="// TODO implement this...")
Basically, the tool I'm searching for would allow me to:
parse files according to their Java structure ("search for interfaces")
search for words contextualized by language elements and types ("variables of type SomeClass", "doStuff() method calls on SomeClass instances")
to run searches with structural context ("within the body of the current result")
easily replace or generate code (with helpers to generate, as above, or functions for replacing, "rename the interface to Foo", "insert the line Blah.Blah()", etc.)
The point is, I don't want to spend a lot of time writing these things, as they are usually throwaway. But sometimes I need something just a little smarter than what grep offers. It wouldn't be too hard to write up a simplistic version of this, but if I'm going to use something like this at all, I'd expect it to be robust.
Any suggestions of a tool/library that will help me accomplish this?
Edit to add some clarification
Python is definitely not necessary; I'll take whatever is that. I merely suggest it incase there are choices.
This is to be used in combination with IDE refactoring; sometimes it just doesn't do everything I want.
In instances where I'm using for code generation (as above), it's for augmenting the output of other code generators. e.g. a library we use outputs a tonne of interfaces, and we need to make standard implementations of each one to mesh it to our codebase.

First, I am not aware of any tool or libraries implemented in Python that specifically designed for refactoring Java code, and a Google search did not give me any leads.
Second, I would posit that writing such a decent tool or library for refactoring Java in Python would be a large task. You would have to implement a Java compiler front-end (lexer/parser, AST builder and type analyser) in Python, then figure out how to integrate this with a program editor. I'm not surprised that nobody has done this ... given that mature alternatives already exist.
Thirdly, doing refactoring without a full analysis of the source code (but uses pattern matching for example) will be incapable of doing complex refactoring, and will is likely to make mistakes in edge cases that the implementor did not think of. I expect that is the level at which the OP is currently operating ...
Given that bleak outlook, what are the alternatives:
One alternative is to use one of the existing Java IDEs (e.g. NetBeans, Eclipse, IDEA. etc) as a refactoring tool. The OP won't be able to extend the capabilities of such a tool in Python code, but the chances are that he won't really need to. I expect that at least one of these IDEs does 95% of what he needs, and (if he is realistic) that should be good enough. Especially when you consider that IDEs have lots of incidental features that help make refactoring easier; e.g. structured editing, undo/redo, incremental compilation, intelligent code completion, intelligent searching, type and call hierarchy views, and so on.
(Aside ... if existing IDEs are not good enough (#WizardOfOdds - only the OP can make that call!!), it would make more sense to try to extend the refactoring capability of an existing IDE than start again in a different implementation language.)
Depending on what he is actually doing, model-driven code generation may be another alternative. For instance, if the refactoring is happening because he is frequently creating and recreating his object model(s), then an alternative is to code the models in some modeling language and generate his code from those models. My tool of choice when doing this kind of thing is Eclipse EMF and related technologies. The EMF technologies include generation of editors, XML serialization, persistence, queries, model to model transformation and so on. I have used EMF to implement and roll out projects with object models consisting of 50 to 100 distinct classes with complex relationships and validation requirements. EMF's support for merging source code edits when you regenerate from an updated model is a key feature.

If you are coding in Java, I strongly recommend that you use NetBeans IDE. It has this kind of refactoring support builtin. Eclipse also supports this kind of thing (although I prefer NetBeans). Both projects are open source, so if you want to see how they perform this refactoring, you can look at their source code.

Java has its fair share of criticism these days but in the area of tooling - it isn't justified.
We are spoiled for choice; Eclipse, Netbeans, Intellij are the big three IDEs. All of them offer excellent levels of searching and Refactoring. Eclipse has the edge on Netbeans I think and Intellij is often ahead of Eclipse
You can also use static analysis tools such as FindBugs, CheckTyle etc to find issues - i.e. excessively long methods and classes, overly complex code.
If you really want to leverage your Python skills - take a look at Jython. Its a Python interpreter written in Java.

Bluray Burner in Java - Where to start?

Like the subject of this post suggests, I am looking at developing a suite like nero which helps burn bluray discs. I am kind of clueless as to where to start. Is there anything in Java API that lets you do this? If I were to start from scratch, would I need to start with the bluray disc spec? Are there any open source tools which are already doing this? I tried searching at sourceforge.net and found nothing useful. Any help is much appreciated.

To start with the obvious: Know your requirements and tools. I try guessing here, maybe.
Requirements:
Should burn BluRay discs
Graphical user interface
Preferred tool:
Java
Now, Java, being perhaps the prime example of a VM language from the 90es, achieves its relatively good platform-agnosticism by virtue of its VM. It's a language designed to run on a virtual hardware to ease portability to real hardware.
Now, what comes with this fact is that you abstract away many things you would have to care about, like memory-management details and architecture or platform-specifics. Among those things you can't reliably get access to is hardware. After all, you abstracted most of that away.
Now, to burn a BluRay disc you have to access hardware, in particular the BluRay writer. Not that it's impossible but Java is, in my humble opinion, not the right tool for this. You can go out of your way by implementing a library in C or C++ and using JNI/JNA to access that but looking at that, what do you really gain?
Java is usually a choice when you need a fairly modern high-level language with a large standard library and you also need your programs to run on more than one platform. Those are the primary use cases. It's not impossible with other technologies, but perhaps harder to achieve, depending on what exactly you need.
If you implement a native library to talk to the BluRay writer and talk to that from Java, then you necessarily need to re-implement it for other platforms as well (assuming that's what you want—if not, then again: Why Java?).
TL/DR version: My point is that it's not too surprising that you can't find much on exactly that topic. For one, Java wasn't really designed to do that sort of things. Most of the Java/native interop lies in the JVM and that's already an awful lot of code. Don't expect Java to natively support very rare usage scenarios such as CD/DVD/BluRay burning. Secondly, BluRay is a relatively new technology with writers not yet common hardware in computers such as CD/DVD writers, so the lack of libraries and tools may also be a mirror of the current demands of the market.

Low-level hardware access is simply not possible in pure Java unless it's in the standard API, which Bluray isn't.
Therefore, you will have to use non-Java code to access the hardware; at that point you lose the platform-independance of Java, and necessarily have a multi-language system, which is always more painful to program than using just a single language.
However, if you can find (or, I guess, develop) a multi-platform Bluray writing API or command line tool in (most likely) C, then it might still make sense to write the rest of the app in Java as a GUI wrapper with added functionality.

How can I port a legacy Java/J2EE website to a modern scripting language (PHP,Python/Django, etc)?

I want to move a legacy Java web application (J2EE) to a scripting language - any scripting language - in order to improve programming efficiency.
What is the easiest way to do this? Are there any automated tools that can convert the bulk of the business logic?

Here's what you have to do.
First, be sure you can walk before you run. Build something simple, possibly tangentially related to your main project.
DO NOT build a piece of the final project and hope it will "evolve" into the final project. This never works out well. Why? You'll make dumb mistakes. But you can't delete or rework them because you're supposed to evolve that mistake into the final project.
Next, pick a a framework. What? Second? Yes. Second. Until you actually do something with some scripting languages and frameworks, you have no real useful concept of what you're doing. Once you've built something, you now have an informed opinion.
"Wait," you say. "To do step 1 I had to pick a framework." True. Step 1, however, contains decisions you're allowed to revoke. Pick the wrong framework for step 1 has no long-term bad effects. It was just learning.
Third, with your strategic framework, and some experience, break down your existing site into pieces you can build with your new framework. Prioritize those pieces from most important to least important.
DO NOT plan the entire conversion as one massive project. It never works. It makes a big job more complex than necessary.
We'll use Django as the example framework. You'll have templates, view functions, model definitions, URL mapping and other details.
For each build, do the following:
Convert your existing model to a Django model. This won't ever fit your legacy SQL. You'll have to rethink your model, fix old mistakes, correct old bugs that you've always wanted to correct.
Write unit tests.
Build a conversion utility to export old data and import into the new model.
Build Django admin pages to touch and feel the new data.
Pick representative pages and rework them into the appropriate templates. You might make use of some legacy JSP pages. However, don't waste too much time with this. Use the HTML to create Django templates.
Plan your URL's and view functions. Sometimes, these view functions will leverage legacy action classes. Don't "convert". Rewrite from scratch. Use your new language and framework.
The only thing that's worth preserving is the data and the operational concept. Don't try to preserve or convert the code. It's misleading. You might convert unittests from JUnit to Python unittest.
I gave this advice a few months ago. I had to do some coaching and review during the processing. The revised site is up and running. No conversion from the old technology; they did the suggested rewrite from scratch. Developer happy. Site works well.

If you already have a large amount of business logic implemented in Java, then I see two possibilities for you.
The first is to use a high level language that runs within the JVM and has a web framework, such as Groovy/Grails or JRuby and Rails. This allows you to directly leverage all of the business logic you've implemented in Java without having to re-architect the entire site. You should be able to take advantage of the framework's improved productivity with respect to the web development and still leverage your existing business logic.
An alternative approach is to turn your business logic layer into a set of services available over a standard RPC mechanisim - REST, SOAP, XML-RPC or some other simple XML (YAML or JSON) over HTTP protocol (see also DWR) so that the front end can make these RPC calls to your business logic.
The first approach, using a high level language on the JVM is probably less re-architecture than the second.
If your goal is a complete migration off of Java, then either of these approaches allow you to do so in smaller steps - you may find that this kind of hybrid is better than whole sale deprecation - the JVM has a lot of libraries and integrates well into a lot of other systems.

Using an automated tool to "port" the web application will almost certainly guarantee that future programming efficiency will be minimised -- not improved.
A good scripting language can help programming efficiency when used by good programmers who understand good coding practices in that language. Automated tools are usually not designed to output code that is elegent or well-written, only code that works.
You'll only get an improvement in programming efficiency after you've put in the effort to re-implement the web app -- which, due to the time required for the reimplementation, may or may not result in an improvement overall.

A lot of the recommendations being given here are assuming you -- and just you -- are doing a full rewrite of the application. This is probably not the case, and it changes the answer quite a bit
If you've already got J2EE kicking around, the correct answer is Grails. It simply is: you probably already have Hibernate and Spring kicking around, and you're going to want the ability to flip back and forth between your old code and your new with a minimum amount of pain. That's exactly Groovy's forte, and it is even smoother than JRuby in this regards.
Also, if you've already got a J2EE app kicking around, you've already got Java developers kicking around. In that case, learning Groovy is like falling off a ladder -- literally. With the exception of anonymous inner classes, Groovy is a pure superset of Java, which means that you can write Java code, call it Groovy, and be done with it. As you become increasingly comfortable with the nicities of Groovy, you can integrate them into your Java-ish Groovy code. Before too long, you'll be writing very Groovy code, and not even really have realized the transition.