Related
I have an application that is undergoing massive rework, and I've been exploring different options - chug along 'as is', redo the project in a different framework or platform, etc.
When I really think about it, here are 3 major things I really dislike about java:
Server start/stops when modifying controllers or other classes. Dynamic languages are a huge win over Java here.
Hibernate, Lazyloading exceptions (especially those that occur in asynchronous service calls or during Jackson JSON marshalling) and ORM bloat in general. Hibernate, all by itself, is responsible for slow integration start up times and insanely slow application start up times.
Java stupidity - inconsistent class-loading problems when running your app inside of your IDE compared to Tomcat. Granted once you iron out these issues, you most likely won't see them again. Even still, most of these are actually caused by Hibernate since it insists on a specific Antlr version and so on.
After thinking about the problem... I could solve or at least improve the situation in all 3 of these areas if I just got rid of Hibernate.
Have any of you reworked a 50+ entity java application to use mongo or couch or similar database? What was the experience like? Do you recommend it? How long did it take you assuming you have some pretty great unit/integration tests? Does the idea sound better than it really is?
My application would actually benefit in many areas if I could store documents. It would actually open up some very cool and interesting features for this application. However, I do like being able to create dynamic queries for complex searches... and I'm told that Couch can't do those.
I'm really green when it comes to NoSQL databases, so any advice on migrating (or not migrating) a big java/spring project would be really helpful. Also, if this is a good idea, what books would you recommend I pick up to get me up to speed and really make use of them for this application in the best way possible?
Thanks
In any way, your rant doesn't just cover problems with the previously made (legacy) decision for Hibernate but also with your development as a programmer in general.
This is how I would do it, should a similar project be dropped in my lap and in dire need of refactoring or improvement.
It depends on the stage in your software's lifetime and the time pressure involved if you should make big changes or stick with smaller ones. Nevertheless, migrating in increments seems to be your best option in the long term.
Keeping the application written in Java for the short term seems wise, a major rewrite in another language will definitely break acceptance and integration tests.
Like suggested by Joseph, make the step from Hibernate to JPA. It shouldn't cost too much time. And from there you can switch the back-end to some other way of storage. Work towards a way of seperating concerns. Pick whatever concept seems best, some prefer MVC while others might opt for CQRS and still others adore another style of segmentation/seperation.
Since the JVM supports many languages, you can always switch to any of those or at least partially implement functionality in more dynamic languages. This will solve part of the problem where you keep bumping into the "stupidity" of Java, while still retaining the excellent optimizations of current JVMs at runtime.
In addition, you might want to set up automatic integration tests... since the application will hopefully never be run from your IDE, these tests will give you honest results.
Side note: I never trust my IDE to get dependencies right if the IDE has capabilities to inject its own libraries into my build or runtime path.
So to recap in short: small steps; lose Hibernate and go more abstract to JPA; if Java becomes stupid, then gradually switch to a clever language. Your primary concern should be to restructure the code base without losing functionality, keeping in mind to have an open design which will make adding interesting and cool features easier later on.
Well, much depends on things like "what exactly are the pain points with Hibernate?" (I know, you gave three examples...)
But those aren't core issues over the long haul. What you're running into is the nature of a compiled language vs. a dynamic one; at runtime, it works out better for you (as Java is faster and more scalable than the dynamic languages, based on my not-quite-exhaustive tests), but at development time, it's less amenable to just hacking crap together and hoping it works.
NoSQL isn't going to fix things, although document stores could, but there's a migration step you're going to have to go through.
Important: I work for a vendor in this space, which explains my experience in the area, as well as the bias in the next paragraph:
You're focusing on open source projects, I suppose, although what I would suggest is using a commercial product: GigaSpaces (http://gigaspaces.com). There's a community edition, that would allow you to migrate JPA-based java objects to a document model (via the SpaceDynamicProperties annotation); you could use JPA for the code you've written and slowly migrate to a fully document-oriented model at your convenience, plus complex queries aren't an issue.
All of those points are usually causing problems due to incompetence, rather than hibernate or java being problematic:
apart from structural modifications (adding fields or methods), all changes in the java code are hot-swapped in debug mode, so that you can save & test (without any redeploy).
the LazyInitializationException is a problem for hibernate-beginners only. There are many and clear solutions to it, and you'll find them with a simple google or SO search. And you can always set your collections to fetch=FetchType.EAGER. Or you can use Hibernate.initialize(..) to initialize lazy collections.
It is entirely normal for a library to require a specific version of another library (the opposite would be suspicious and wrong). If you keep your classpath clean (for example by using maven or ivy), you won't have any classloading issues. I have never had.
Now, I will provide an alternative. spring-data is a new portfolio project by springsource, that allows you to use your entities for a bunch of NoSQL stores.
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.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I find the nature of this question to be quite suited for the practical-minded people on Stack Overflow.
I'm setting out on making a rather large-scale project in Java. I'm not going to go into specifics, but it is going to involve data management, parsing of heterogeneous formats, and need to have an appealing interface with editor semantics. I'm a undergraduate student and think it would evolve into a good project to show my skill for employment -- heck, ideally it would even be the grounds for a startup.
I write to ask you what shortcuts I might not be thinking about that will help with a complicated project in Java. Of course, I am planning to go at it in Eclipse, and will probably use SWT for the GUI. However, I know that Java has the unfortunately quality of overcomplicating everything, and I don't want to get stuck.
Before you tell me that I want to do it in Python, or the like, I just want to reiterate why I would choose Java:
Lots more experience with algorithms in Java, and there will be quite a bit of those.
Want a huge library of APIs to expand functionality. ANTLR, databases, libraries for dealing with certain formats
Want to run it anywhere with decent performance
I am open-minded to all technologies (most familiar with Java, perl, sql, a little functional).
EDIT: For the moment, I am giving it to djna (although the low votes). I think all of your answers are definitely helpful in some respect.
I think djna hit better the stuff I need to watch out for as novice programmer, recognizing that I'm not taking shortcuts but rather trying not to mess up. As for the suggestions of large frameworks, esp. J2EE, that is way too much in this situation. I am trying to offer the simplest solution and one in which my API can be extended by someone who is not a J2EE/JDBC expert.
Thanks for bringing up Apache Commons, although I was already aware. Still confused over SWT vs. Swing, but every Swing program I've used has been butt ugly. As I alluded to in the post, I am going to want to focus most on the file interchange and limited DB features that I have to implement myself (but will be cautious -- I am aware of the concurrency and ACID problems).
Still a community wiki to improve.
Learn/use Spring, and create your project so it will run without a Spring config (those things tend to run out of control), while retaining the possibility to configure the parameters of your environment in a later stage. You also get a uniform way to integrate other frameworks like Hibernate, Quartz, ...
And, in my experience, stay away from the GUI builders. It may seem like a good deal, but I like to retain control of my code all the time.
Google-collections:
http://code.google.com/p/google-collections/
Joda Time for all date and time manipulations.
One of Hibernate or iBATIS to manipulate data in a database
Don't forget the IDE: Eclipse, Netbeans or IDEA if you have some cash and like it
Apache Commons has a lot of time saving code that will you most likely need and can reuse.
http://commons.apache.org/
A sensible build and configuration platform will help you along the way, Ant:
http://ant.apache.org/
or Maven (preferably):
http://maven.apache.org/
Especially as the size of the project, and the number of modules in the project increase.
There's getting the "project" completed efficiently and there are "short cuts". I suspect the following may fall into the "avoiding wasted effort" category rather be truly short cuts but if any of them get you to then end more quickly then I perhaps they help.
1). Decomposition and separation of concerns. You've already identified high-level chunks (UI, persistence layer, parser etc.). Define the interfaces for the provider classes as soon as possible and have all dependent classes work against those interfaces. Pay a lot of attention to the usability of those interfaces, make them easy to understand - names matter. Even something as simple as the difference between setShutdownFlag(true) and requestShutdown(), the second has explicit meaning and hence I prefer it.
Benefits: Easier maintenance. Even during initial development "maintenance" happens. You will want to change code you've already written. Make it easy to get that right by strong encapsulation.
2). Expect iterative development, to be refining and redesigning. Don't expect to "finish" any one component in isolation before you use it. In other words don't take a purely bottom up approach to developing your componenets. As you use them you find out more information, as you implement them you find out more about what's possible.
So enable development of higher level components especially the UI by mocking and stubbing low level components. Something such as JMock is a short-cut.
3). Test early, test often. Use JUnit (or equivalent). You've got mocks for your low level components so you can test them.
Subjectively, I feel that I write better code when I've got a "test hat" on.
4). Define your error handling strategy up front. Produce good diagnostics when errors are detected.
Benefits: Much easier to get the bugs out.
5). Following on from error handling - use diagostic debugging statements. Sprinkle them liberally throughout your code. Don't use System.out.println(), instead use the debugging facilities of your logging library - use java.util.logging. Interactive debuggers are useful but not the only way of analysing problems.
Don't discount Swing for the GUI. There are a lot of good 3rd party Swing libraries available (open source and commercial) depending on your needs e.g.
JGoodies Form Layout
SwingX
JFreeChart
Use logging framework (i.e. Log4J) and plan for it. Reliable logging system saves a lot of time during bug fixing.
For me big time-savers are:
use version-control (Subversion/Git)
use automatic builds (Ant/Make/Maven)
use Continuous-integration (Hudson/CruiseControl)
the apache-commons-libraries are very useful
Test Driven Development
Figure out the functionality you want and write tests to demonstrate the functionality. Then write just enough code to pass the tests. This will have some great side effects:
By writing just enough code to satisfy your requirements you will not be tempted to overbuild, which should reduce complexity and make your code cleaner.
Having tests will allow you to "refactor with confidence" and make changes to the code knowing you're not breaking another part of the system.
You're building quality in. Not only will you have assurance that you code "works, but if you really want to use this code as a sort of "resume" for potential employers, this will show them that you place a lot of value on code quality. This alone will set you apart from the majority of the developers out there.
Aside from that, I would agree that other big time savers are Spring, having an automated build (Maven), and using some form of source control.
For data persistency, if you're not certain that you must use SQL, you should take a look at alternate data-storage libraries:
Prevayler: an in memory database systems, using developing ideas like "crash only components", that make it easy to use and very performatic. May be used even for simple applications where you just need to save some state. It has a BSD License.
BerkleyDB Java Edition: a storage system with different layers of abstraction, so one can use it as a basic key-value storage (almost an in-disk hashtable) to a fully transactional ACID system. Take a look at it's licensing information because even some commercial software may use it for free.
Be aware that they have trade-offs when compared with each other or with a standard SQL database! And, of course, there may be other similar options around, but these are the ones I know and like. :)
PS: I was not allowed to post the respective links because I'm a new user. Just google for them; first hits are the right ones.
You can save time between restarts by using JavaRebel (commercial). Briefly, this tool allows you to write your code in Eclipse and have the code changes picked up instantly.
Spring Roo can not only get your project quickly kickstarted (using a sound architecture) but also reduce your ongoing maintenance. If you're thinking of using Spring, servlets, and/or JPA, you should definitely consider it. It's also easy to layer on things like security.
I'm starting a fairly complex Swing application that heavily graphics-oriented with about 1000 separate jpegs, 30+ different forms, and timers keeping track of the rate of user-interactions throughout.
My question is from a practical programming perspective, after I've already written a storyboard for the entire project and got it approved by the client, where's the best place (code-wise) to begin programming this massive project and in what order should I program the elements?
(Example Answer: first begin coding the declare and init statements of all the necessary pieces, then write skeleton versions of all the methods, then deal with swing design and layout manager (gridbag), and then deal with Events and Listeners)
Thanks for the advice everyone, oh and btw I really love StackOverflow!
You're describing a "waterfall" development approach - completing some level of the program first, then completing the next level etc. It's indeed one possible approach, but many people find it so called tracer bullet approach better; first make something functional, then learn from it, adjust what's needed and proceed. It's especially useful if you're working with a client, because by showing prototypes you can get feedback and avoid misunderstandings.
I'd pick up a book on TDD and even if you're not going to write automated tests, it will be full of good advice on how to approach your project.
After that I'd pick a single piece of functionality that slices all the way through your application vertically and implement that end-to-end. This should allow you to get any infrastructure/frameworks in place and spot any gotcha's that may get thrown up out of your design.
If your client has the time free, show them each piece of functionality along the way and make sure that every piece you do adds some value to the product.
--EDIT
In addition I'd take a look at using a graphical designer for your screens instead of using the GridBagLayout. That will just waste time and can quickly become a maintainence nightmare when changing screens. I personally prefer the ones that work in a resource file type way, where the screen is essentially "compiled" and you just load it into your code
I prefer writing the UI so, that first I write (using TDD) the backend classes which implement the behaviour of the UI, without any dependencies to the presentation of the UI (i.e. without Swing or any other UI library). After that I write a thin presentation layer with an UI library, where all the event handlers etc. delegate to the UI backend (they should be just one-liners without any logic). The benefit of this is that you can easily write tests for the UI, which in turn makes it easier to change and maintain the UI. See the links at http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/ModelViewPresenter.html for more details.
At a higher level, first implement the features which will produce the most value to the users. Try to get something to show as early as possible, so that you can get feedback from the users and improve any deficiencies in the UI. You can fake most of the background services (for example the database and business rules), so that the UI can be used, even though it does not yet really do anything.
I think mad-j has the words of wisdom.
Don't concentrate on the 'all'... identify sections/components/modules and deliver those. Then move on to the next and the next. This is called Iterative and Incremental Development (a response to the weaknesses of the waterfall model)!
This will also allow you to create tools and frameworks which should make your development easier and faster as you move along.
This will allow you to show your clients functional parts early. But a word of advice! Your client will more than likely keep changing its requirements, changing the GUI, changing its mind, etc. I've seen entire projects fail due to these continuous changes. It is out of the scope of this question to mention any more on this, but please be aware that it more than likely will happen and be prepared to deal with it!
If you and the client have functional parts, they can be tested immediately rather than testing one huge system.
By completing functional parts iteratively will probably allow you to work at every layer, on most API's using most tools and technologies. The advantage of this is that it will allow you to identify the complexities early. It is those complex areas that render this following statement true:
The first 90% of the code accounts for
the first 90% of the development time.
The remaining 10% of the code accounts
for the other 90% of the development
time. --Tom Cargil
Identifying, acknowledging and understanding those complex areas will allow you to manage your risks and alter your efforts and resources more effectively.
Good Luck,
Jeach!
As mentioned by MrWiggles, you may want to look into using a UI builder.
If you're looking at writing many forms, and it looks like the form data can match nicely to some javabeans, you may want to think about creating some framework panels first.
If you can create some simple base classes that take care of the wiring (syncing the fields to the beans and vice-versa), it'll save you a lot of work.
You may even want to set up some panels that will "auto create" fields based on beans. Just pass in a bean and the panel creates itself. The trick there is specifying layout for the fields, and dealing with fields that have fixed values, validation, etc. (Fixed values can be dealt with using javabean property editors - see http://javadude.com/articles/propedit/index.html.
If you're set on using Swing (eclipse RCP is nice, btw), you might want to look at the Swing Application Framework (https://appframework.dev.java.net/). If not using it directly, it may give you some ideas on how to set up bindings.
Hope this helps a bit
Are you really sure of Swing? Eclipse RCP is much better and flexible starting from EMF and going on
Anyway with Swing, first I'll prepare an XSLT template of all: common code routine and other common pieces of common to bring then them in abstract and interface classes, ORM patterns you use.
Then I'll design a common UI scheme, this "xslize" too.
After all with ANT XSLT processor I'll prepare a complete build procedure upon your specs.
P.S.
I made similar projects for simple web and swing cruds just before 2001, and if you use some peculiar UI designer you can also nest or write with xslt every specs without putting dirty code in your ui raw concepts, so when I make/add remove features on all or singular piece of code, 30 seconds maximum for full rebuild of ALL, of course you must "XSLIZE" all using also many xslt overrider/import.
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.