Java EE 6 vs. Spring 3 stack [closed]

Answer 1

It doesn't matter. Java EE 6 is good enough and because of the profiles there, it is not "heavy" - you'll just be using the web profile.

Personally, I prefer Spring. But I'm running out of rational arguments against Java EE 6 :)

(As I was reminded by a comment - you might want to try RichFaces, as well as ICEfaces and/or PrimeFaces - depending on what components you need).

Answer 2

Didn't read everything but just to tell that you can now use EJB3 inside a war on Java EE 6 so you can use EJB3 on Tomcat (I think).

Answer 3

Why is there still rumblings about EJB being heavyweight in 2010? It seems people are not being updated in Java EE technologies. Just try it out , you will be pleasantly surprised how things are simplified in Java EE 6.

Answer 4

If you need the Java EE full stack I recommend you GlassFish 3.1. It starts very quickly compared to other Java EE containers which implements some part or all Java EE 6 (JBoss 6, WebLogic 10.3.4), redeployment take seconds and almost all can be done by convention over configuration, it is very friendly.

I you want something "Light" you can customize an Apache Tomcat 7.x with the desired features. I used a lot with the following libraries: Weld 1.1.0 (CDI) JPA 2.0 (Hibernate 3.6.x) - only resource local transactions JSF 2.x (Mojarra) RichFaces 4.0 BIRT runtime

Been a Java EE developer for the past 10 years (I suffer early EJB, JSF and web technologies), Java EE 6 is very easy, well coupled and current hardware runs smooth so original reasons that motivated Spring are no longer valid.

Answer 5

I need something light, so no EJB or Seam.

Would you care to explain what makes EJBs heavy since EJB3? Do you realize that we are not in 2004 anymore? I'd really like to read your definition of light and your arguments (and I will update my answer with pleasure because I'm pretty sure I would have a few solid things to say).

On the other hand I need JPA (Hibernate or alternative) and JSF with IceFaces.

Java EE 6 Web Profile which includes JSF 2.0, JPA 2.0, Bean Validation, EJB 3.1 Lite, CDI,... would be perfect for this and you can use GlassFish v3 Web Profile to run an application built with the Java EE 6 Web Profile.

Do you think that such stack on Spring 3 deployed on Tomcat is a good choice? Or a Java EE 6 web application could be better?

Well, I like the idea to run my code on a non-proprietary platform (Java EE) rather than on a proprietary container (Spring). And I think that Java EE 6 is good enough (and this is an euphemism, EJB 3.1 (Lite), JPA 2.0, JSF 2.0, CDI kick ass). Note that I was a JSF skeptic but I took a second look and JSF 2.0 with CDI is so different that I can't even compare. And if you didn't look at CDI, let me tell you that it rocks.

I'm afraid that Java EE 6 is a new technology, not well documented yet.

Java EE looks pretty well documented to me. This sounds like free claim. And, believe me or not, I start to find Spring getting complicated while Java EE getting easier.

Tomcat seems to be easier to maintain than Glassfish 3.

Did you try something? Did you face any particular problem? Again, this sounds like free claim.

Answer 6

Now, after some time, I have experience with stacks :

• Java EE 5 + Seam + GraniteDS + Flex
• Spring 3 + Vaadin (on GWT)
• Spring 3 + JSF 2.0 (PrimeFaces)

My colclusions are:

• Spring 3 is much much simpler than Seam (almost Java EE 6) and runs on Tomcat and Jetty! (Jetty for developement with maven plugin is a trasure).
• I love Flex (I actually was a Flex developer for long time so I'm biased) and if you need rich interface and can buy FlashBuilder use this, but use this wich Spring + GraniteDS or BlazeDs backend. If you can't buy FlashBuilder don't waste your time.
• Vaadin is great!. Developement process is simpler than Flex, but you can create rich application easily without HTML mess. You wont't write a singe JS line. You just need some CSS (in Flex you need it too). So if your application interface is going to behave like desktop application and you can't (or dont want to) use Flex - use Vaadin. Warning! Vaadin has big JS overhead for browser.
• If you create simpler website-like application use JSF2.0 (with spring backend as above). You'll need to fight with HTML (I hate it) and creating rich interface will be harder than Vaadin (especially layouts). You will get lightweight HTML for slower browsers/compuetrs. I like PrimeFaces - it's easy and well documented. Second place is IceFaces
• If you create a website (NOT a web application) where you need to put life into HTML (instead of create enterprise application that fits into browser) use Wicket (if you prefer component based, pull attitude) or SpringMVC (if you prefer template based, push attitude) or just use Play! framework. Remember that creating rich data-based components will be much much harder but you will have control over each tag of html (your HTML/Graphics designer will love it)