Lift has the most natural comet abstraction I've used, but using lift's 1.0 ORM felt a little raw and the API has a steep learning curve. The sheer amount imports at the top of a class can get ugly, especially when working w/ heavy javascript. While waiting for 2.0 to have some more documentation and Record to replace Mapper, I've looked at some of the Play! Framework which seems to very straightforward scala support. Abandoning HttpServlet makes me nervous and response streaming isn't supported (no real comet), but Play! is a really refreshing web framework w/ scala support. Don't expect all forms of scalate to work though despite having a module for it.
I don't have any issues w/ the new liftweb site look and feel. That shouldn't be a deal breaker for a quality web framework. For example, HN seems to have a large hadron collider over clojure -- anyone remember what the non-github compojure website looks like?
Anyone have any success w/ the tar/zip link on the liftweb download page? Broken links for me; sad panda. :(
Lift and Play! embody very different philosophies of web development, but if you want something closer to the common MVC frameworks Play! is very nicely done.
Well if you mean Model/Controller/Route first vs View first, yes they are philosophically different. But I meant more along the lines of how friendly the API is. An additional example would also include the fact that although Lift has come a long way in providing meaningful error information, by contrast Play!'s take on it is just a breath of fresh air. This isn't to say that Lift is doing it wrong; it's error messaging is less arcane than some other web frameworks.
I agree that Play shows a lot of polish and attention to detail. I haven't done anything significant with it but it was very pleasant for the few simple things I tried.
Comments
Lift has the most natural comet abstraction I've used, but using lift's 1.0 ORM felt a little raw and the API has a steep learning curve. The sheer amount imports at the top of a class can get ugly, especially when working w/ heavy javascript. While waiting for 2.0 to have some more documentation and Record to replace Mapper, I've looked at some of the Play! Framework which seems to very straightforward scala support. Abandoning HttpServlet makes me nervous and response streaming isn't supported (no real comet), but Play! is a really refreshing web framework w/ scala support. Don't expect all forms of scalate to work though despite having a module for it.
I don't have any issues w/ the new liftweb site look and feel. That shouldn't be a deal breaker for a quality web framework. For example, HN seems to have a large hadron collider over clojure -- anyone remember what the non-github compojure website looks like?
Anyone have any success w/ the tar/zip link on the liftweb download page? Broken links for me; sad panda. :(
Lift and Play! embody very different philosophies of web development, but if you want something closer to the common MVC frameworks Play! is very nicely done.
Well if you mean Model/Controller/Route first vs View first, yes they are philosophically different. But I meant more along the lines of how friendly the API is. An additional example would also include the fact that although Lift has come a long way in providing meaningful error information, by contrast Play!'s take on it is just a breath of fresh air. This isn't to say that Lift is doing it wrong; it's error messaging is less arcane than some other web frameworks.
I agree that Play shows a lot of polish and attention to detail. I haven't done anything significant with it but it was very pleasant for the few simple things I tried.
> anyone remember what the non-github compojure website looks like?
It sucked ;)
However, Lift is several years older than Compojure, and is now in its second stable release, whilst Compojure has yet to reach 1.0.