Why does this forum use PHP? Why not Spring?

[springland]

Does anyone know why this forum was built with PHP? Was Spring also used to build this forum? If not, why not? If so, how so?

Thanks!

[linus1412]

Does anyone know why this forum was built with PHP? Was Spring also used to build this forum? If not, why not? If so, how so?

Thanks!

Why reinvent the wheel? What benifit would there be? To duplicte all the functionality of the PHP app would take time - time better spent improving Spring.

Martin

[Alarmnummer]

Does anyone know why this forum was built with PHP?

That is a great idea!.

first start with writing an operating system that uses Spring... Springdows... and we need a browser.. Springzilla.. and we need a IDE... Springbuilder.. and what do we need more... aha. an applicationserver.. Springsphere or Springcat if we only need a servlet container..

[josenyimi]

For the same reason as http://www.springframework.org/ is based on a PHP CMS (Drupal) as Colin explained it at http://www.springframework.org/node/69#comment-7

R,
José.

[pcalcado]

Hi all,

If we start thinking this way, we'll end up asking why the OS and browser we are using does not use Spring.

Anyway, there is a very cool forum in java: www.jforum.net . We use this to power our jug at www.guj.com.br/forum (Brazilian portuguese only)

[bujorc]

first start with writing an operating system that uses Spring... Springdows... and we need a browser.. Springzilla.. and we need a IDE... Springbuilder.. and what do we need more... aha. an applicationserver.. Springsphere or Springcat if we only need a servlet container..

Almost agree...
People don't always use the best tool for the job. But I guess this is the reason behind many "revolutions". Why Spring MVC instead of Web/XWork or Struts ? There is no clear winner (?) in web frameworks, because "choosing the right tool" it's hard and a very relative thing. A lot of things disappeared because of political reasons, not because they were bad.
I bet that if someone would build a good CMS on Spring, nobody will say "Man, why did you waste your time, why did you do that, when you have Drupal (or something else)?".
There is no right answer, because this isn't math.

[Alarmnummer]

first start with writing an operating system that uses Spring... Springdows... and we need a browser.. Springzilla.. and we need a IDE... Springbuilder.. and what do we need more... aha. an applicationserver.. Springsphere or Springcat if we only need a servlet container..

Almost agree...
People don't always use the best tool for the job. But I guess this is the reason behind many "revolutions". Why Spring MVC instead of Web/XWork or Struts ? There is no clear winner (?) in web frameworks, because "choosing the right tool" it's hard and a very relative thing.

Yes.. and it is difficult to select a good tool if you don`t have the time to master them and to compare them. In the beginning I found Swing difficult and maybe wouldn`t have chosen it (although there was no alternative at the time.. AWT doesn`t count). But after some time I`m quite happy with it.

BTW: I use Tapestry for the webpages. I think Spring-MVC is fundamentally flawed. I want to think in methodes, properties and objects. Not in url`s, html. Tapestry allows me to think this way. The only problem I have with Tapestry is that you don`t get replies on the mailing lists, nobody responds at the irc... and it can be difficult to figure something out. But if you understand the basics.. and don`t have to figure out anything.. it goes fast...

[Ben Alex]

I think Spring-MVC is fundamentally flawed

Spring MVC is, as its name implies, a web-based Model View Controller implementation. Tapestry is an event-based web framework. They are different beasts. I am playing with AJAX at present, which is not MVC-driven in the traditional sense of deliniation between client and server. I would never declare Spring MVC as fundamentally flawed because I am having success with an alternative pattern of web application implementation.

Given Spring MVC's focus on being an MVC web framework, are there any specific concerns you have with the Spring MVC implementation of MVC? I personally have found Spring MVC to be an exceptionally high-quality MVC framework.

[Alarmnummer]

I think Spring-MVC is fundamentally flawed

Spring MVC is, as its name implies, a web-based Model View Controller implementation.

Tapestry also is MVC based. Nothing more.. and nothing less then Spring-MVC.

Tapestry is an event-based web framework. They are different beasts.

Events can perfectly be combined with MVC frameworks.. take a look at Swing for example.

I would never declare Spring MVC as fundamentally flawed because I am having success with an alternative pattern of web application implementation.

I`m not happy with it. I have lot of experience programming Swing, but creating webpages takes ages and ages. It is so difficult to think about state, state translated in webpages, calls between webpages. It makes my head hurt. I have not much experience with Spring-MVC (only build a single app in it), but I found it just as difficult as Maverick (the other thing I normally use.. and want to get rid of). I`m trying Tapestry for the moment and if you understand the basics it is so much easier because it lets you think in method calls, pages, pagecalls etc..

Spring-MVC can be compared with assembler.. Tapestry with Java.. it takes a lot of pain away.

Given Spring MVC's focus on being an MVC web framework, are there any specific concerns you have with the Spring MVC implementation of MVC? I personally have found Spring MVC to be an exceptionally high-quality MVC framework.

I think every webframwork that makes your head hurt is flawed..

[lumpynose]

I would never declare Spring MVC as fundamentally flawed because I am having success with an alternative pattern of web application implementation.

Neither would I. Nevertheless I think it's an interesting topic.

If Tapestry is easier to use and it's less trouble to set up a web app with it and it's easier to learn and understand then I'd like to know what we gain with Spring's complexity (compared to tapestry).