I always thought Play looked incredible, but the focus on Scala puts me off. Every time I tried it, Java seemed like a second-class citizen in the Play world. I don't have anything against Scala, I'm just not really interested in learning it, especially if I all I want to do is use a web framework.
I've been using Play for about 2+ years with Scala. I think it's a cool framework and has removed most of complexity that you see with other JVM-Web frameworks. There are few things that are still missing, like up-to-date docs. and bundled ORM. The plugin community needs to be better organized so it has potential to become a gem like community.
Play 1's code generation / scaffolding for CRUD apps was nice. It would be a cool feature to add to Play 2.
I really find Play 2 to be an enormous improvement over Play 1 though. As just one example, deploying your app is so much easier in Play 2. Play 1 expected you to install the framework on your production machines. Play 2 has built-in support for building deb/rpm packages, docker containers, zip archives, etc. which makes deploying so much easier.
Agreed - I feel like the simplicity was lost in order to make the framework more scalable, when 95% of sites don't need the added scalability it provides.
Can someone compare this framework to Django or Rails? Java was my first language and I sorely miss a lot of aspects in it. Would be interested to know about the learning curve, performance, and ORM.
And how does it compare to DropWizard? I'm porting a plugin from Atlassian Confluence to make it a standalone app, and I'm leaning for DropWizard because I can reuse and share the common code made of Jersey REST resouces and synchronous calls.
Both Play and DropWizard seem to have the same goal, Play being more integrated and scalable, DropWizard more respectful of existing Java frameworks.
I've recently tried to use play with scala on a new project after having had a very pleasant first experience with play/java, but found the overall experience much much less convincing. IDEs often don't work well with the language, and some key parts of the framework such as ORM seem still a work in progress.
Anyone else had the same feeling here ? I came to the conclusion that play should advocate the use of java as the preferred language if they want to grow their user base even more.
Standardized dependency injection is great news! The Play application I work on has a home-grown dependency injection system that leaves a lot to be desired. It will be great to see a more standard way of doing this.
I have seen many projects use scala-guice [1][2]. If all I have to do is build a module [3] and @Inject[4] in to the top of my controller, I struggle to see the benefits of Play supporting it directly.
[+] [-] benmccann|10 years ago|reply
As someone who's used Play heavily for the past couple of years, I'm very excited by this release, which is Play's best yet.
[+] [-] rmsaksida|10 years ago|reply
I always thought Play looked incredible, but the focus on Scala puts me off. Every time I tried it, Java seemed like a second-class citizen in the Play world. I don't have anything against Scala, I'm just not really interested in learning it, especially if I all I want to do is use a web framework.
[+] [-] sctb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acjohnson55|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dk8996|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justthistime_|10 years ago|reply
Which parts are out-of-date?
> and bundled ORM
Didn't they just go the other way, de-bundling all persistence APIs/libs?
What's wrong with just picking the one that's right for your use-case and using just that?
[+] [-] meddlepal|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benmccann|10 years ago|reply
I really find Play 2 to be an enormous improvement over Play 1 though. As just one example, deploying your app is so much easier in Play 2. Play 1 expected you to install the framework on your production machines. Play 2 has built-in support for building deb/rpm packages, docker containers, zip archives, etc. which makes deploying so much easier.
[+] [-] bluedevil2k|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gbersac|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] papercrane|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clw8|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dopeboy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tajen|10 years ago|reply
Both Play and DropWizard seem to have the same goal, Play being more integrated and scalable, DropWizard more respectful of existing Java frameworks.
[+] [-] bsaul|10 years ago|reply
Anyone else had the same feeling here ? I came to the conclusion that play should advocate the use of java as the preferred language if they want to grow their user base even more.
[+] [-] redtuesday|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kailuowang|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goralph|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eranation|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt_kantor|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benburton|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kodablah|10 years ago|reply
1 - https://github.com/codingwell/scala-guice 2 - https://github.com/mohiva/play-silhouette-seed 3 - https://github.com/mohiva/play-silhouette-seed/blob/master/a... 4 - https://github.com/mohiva/play-silhouette-seed/blob/master/a...