Limit this search to....

The Definitive Guide to Grails
Contributor(s): Rocher, Graeme (Author), Brown, Jeff Scott (Author)
ISBN: 1590599950     ISBN-13: 9781590599952
Publisher: Apress
OUR PRICE:   $42.29  
Product Type: Paperback - Other Formats
Published: January 2009
Qty:
Annotation: In this up-to-date and authoritative guide, Rocher covers all the core features, services, and extensions via plug-ins and is sure to benefit anyone looking for a more agile approach to Web development with such dynamic scripting language as Groovy.
Additional Information
BISAC Categories:
- Computers | Software Development & Engineering - General
- Computers | Programming - General
- Computers | Programming Languages - Java
Dewey: 005.1
Series: Expert's Voice in Web Development
Physical Information: 1.3" H x 7" W x 9.2" (1.90 lbs) 648 pages
 
Descriptions, Reviews, Etc.
Publisher Description:
In the late '90s I was working on a project developing large-scale enterprise learning mana- ment systems using early J2EE technologies such as EJB 1.0 and the Servlet framework. The Java hype machine was in full swing, and references to "EJB that, and Java this" were on the cover of every major IT publication. Even though what we were doing--and learning as we did it--felt so horribly wrong, the industry kept telling us we were doing the right thing. EJB was going to solve all our problems, and servlets (even without a view technology at the time) were the right thing to use. My, how times have changed. Nowadays, Java and J2EE are long-forgotten buzzwords, and the hype machine is throwing other complex acronyms at us such as SOA and ESB. In my experience, developers are on a c- tinued mission to write less code. The monolithic J2EE specifications, like those adopted by the development community in the early days, didn't help. If a framework or a specification is overly complex and requires you to write reams of repetitive code, it should be an immediate big red flag. Why did we have to write so much repetitive boilerplate code? Surely there was a better way.