Talk:List of web application framework comparisons

message: ===Pyramid===
There's already an article on Pyramid_(web_framework), shouldn't it be on this list as well?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.65.97 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ===FLOW3===
Please include FLOW3 in this list / comparison. 
It is the WebApplication Framework for Typo3 (PHP5).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.66.218 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

text: ===Nexista===
I am the maintainer of Nexista and have tried adding it to this comparison page twice, only to have it removed. The first time it was removed, I requested an explanation from the user who removed it and did not receive an answer so I added it again. The second removal included a note that the removed items did not have their own Wikipedia page. Why is that a valid reason? Who decided this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informedbanker (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, usually you would use a reliable source as a reference if there is no article. It's worth noting that currently there does not appear to be any reliable sources for Nexista. --Hm2k (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I have removed Gluon from some places, but there are a couple people removing frameworks for notability issues. Generally, there is some consensus to only include frameworks that are notable in some way. While this hasn't been set in stone, most of the frameworks have an individual article on Wikipedia before they are added to this list. Also, Gluon's Goolge Group has under 100 postings for the past two months, there is no public repository (so I cannot verify how much code is under development) and there are no outside sites that mention Gluon besides ones that have user-submitted content (Digg, del.icio.us). I don't think Gluon is a notable framework at this point in time. Ian Bailey 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of web application frameworks yet to be included in the comparison, or disputed frameworks

message: There's already an article on Pyramid_(web_framework), shouldn't it be on this list as well?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.65.97 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pyramid

message: Please see the Frameworks section of plackperl.org and include the ones that you haven't mentioned.
Stefan.petrea (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Perl

message: Please include FLOW3 in this list / comparison. 
It is the WebApplication Framework for Typo3 (PHP5).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.66.218 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: FLOW3

message: I am the maintainer of Nexista and have tried adding it to this comparison page twice, only to have it removed. The first time it was removed, I requested an explanation from the user who removed it and did not receive an answer so I added it again. The second removal included a note that the removed items did not have their own Wikipedia page. Why is that a valid reason? Who decided this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informedbanker (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, usually you would use a reliable source as a reference if there is no article. It's worth noting that currently there does not appear to be any reliable sources for Nexista. --Hm2k (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nexista

message: This article does not include Seaside among the web application frameworks being compared. --Betamod 07:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seaside

message: Echo framework is not yet used broadly but rich in functionality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterklee (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Echo2 // Echo3 

message: I think that J2EE, itself, is a pretty important framework.  It comes with its own server and you can use it as-is.  
And of course the many J2EE spinoffs should be mentioned - Jboss, Tomcat, WebSphere and WebLogic come to mind and I don't even do J2EE.
J2EE is a framework specification.  Jboss, Tomcat, Websphere, etc. are different implementations of the specification or parts of it.  They are not spinoffs.  --Teacurran 10/4/2009  —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: J2EE etc?

message: What is the scope of this article ? JBoss, Websphere, Geronimo, ... are Application Servers. Struts, JSF, Tapestry, ... are Web-MVC-Frameworks which can be integrated in application servers. Preconfigured Application-Servers (you can call it "Web Application Frameworks") are Spring, Glassfish, Jboss-Seam, and so on - the article is mixing these techniques. --84.185.141.101 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Frameworks and CMSs are something completely different, they CANNOT be on the same page! Create a new page for CMS comparison and remove them from this page! This article is a total mess like that. Markushausammann (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Frameworks vs CMSs

message: I am new to wikipedia. I included Gluon to the list and somebody removed it. I do not why so I put it back. If it is a procedural issue please let me know what I am doing wrong. Gluon is not a commercial product but released under GPL. You can check its popularity by googling "enterprise web framework. User: massimodipierro
:I have removed Gluon from some places, but there are a couple people removing frameworks for notability issues. Generally, there is some consensus to only include frameworks that are notable in some way. While this hasn't been set in stone, most of the frameworks have an individual article on Wikipedia before they are added to this list. Also, Gluon's Goolge Group has under 100 postings for the past two months, there is no public repository (so I cannot verify how much code is under development) and there are no outside sites that mention Gluon besides ones that have user-submitted content (Digg, del.icio.us). I don't think Gluon is a notable framework at this point in time. Ian Bailey 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gluon

message: Is Tornado worth Mentioning?--118.90.79.81 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tornado

message: I'm missing prado framework: http://www.pradoframework.com/ 94.212.196.204 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Prado (php)

message: Struts has ORM?  Um, no it doesnt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.56.5 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ORM

message: With so many choices, a popularity ranking would cut through a lot of noise. A simple start might be google hits, download activity, sites deployed, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.66 (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page definitely needs some columns including: Maturity, Install Base, Major Implementations, Awards.  Adamnelson (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Popularity wouldn't be neutral or wikipedia-like, but yes, start date, notable implementations, amount of downloads, etc would be useful. --Hm2k (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: yeah, any kind of number whereby you could filter out the tiny ones.  Maybe something like 'claimed downloads'.  Even something self-reported would be good.  Or even different measures - like sales of books or something. 'year of most recent release' would also help fiilter out the comatose ones.   OsamaBinLogin (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maturity might be more helpful than popularity or even downloads. What constitutes a so-called "tiny" framework? A features list would be better. Just because a framework has been out there a while doesn't mean it's necessarily better than something newer. If you look under the hood of some of these so-called "popular" or "major" frameworks (and I have), the crap and cruft is pretty ugly. WebTigers (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity

message: The feature comparison table is useless. All cells are practically "Yes". This is just a complicated way of saying X, Y, Z have features A, B, C.
Here's an example, for the PHP frameworks: http://www.phpit.net/article/ten-different-php-frameworks/ I'm not saying we should copy this, but the columns they used were useful to me.--Justfred 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DB Migration frameworks allow you to add and remove columns or tables from a database table using special schema change files.  These are useful as you can store the schema change files in a revision control system.  I believe the term was coined by Ruby on Rails. --Powerlord 02:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty cool for what it is, you create & modify tables Only by way of migration objects, which have forward and backward methods, so you also write how to remove the change.  So you're not doing DDL on the live DB before you've run the same DDL on all your dev and test DBs.OsamaBinLogin (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah CakePHP does not really have DB migration built in. There is a plugin or two which are similar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.233.110 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feature comparison

message: Just a note, I've added what I know... I'm hoping others can fill out more details, and can help collaborate on a list of suitable "features" to verify.
I'd like this to end up looking something like Comparison of Linux distributions.
Ian Bailey 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: What good is a list if it's just a list with no further info? The comparison page is much more useful, in addition to giving you a list of web application frameworks as well. If we keep only the comparison page, new web application frameworks will need to be added to one page only, instead of two, additionally eliminating any problems of keeping the two pages in sync. --The Wild Falcon 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only possible problem I see with that is that it will create one humongous table. --Powerlord 02:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One other problem is that the List page contains many "sub" frameworks that are not intended to solve the same problems as the "big" frameworks mentioned on this page. Including them here would lead to lots of blank columns that are not applicable to particular frameworks. One example of this is the various Ajax/JavaScript frameworks, that would not normally implement an ORM layer. Perhaps we could have a separate table for each area? (Database access, Javascript, ...) Ian Bailey 12:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote that both tables be merged to one document but kept as individual tables -- Aaron  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.133.154 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can merge the "List" page into the first section of the "Comparison" page, which contains lots of easily verifiable information. Then we can compare frameworks in more detailed criteria when applicable. I don't see any real opposition to the merge, we're talking more about how to accomplish the merge, so we can start copying the list over to the top table as a first pass, and then delete the list page when we're doneIan Bailey 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copied over about 1/3 of the frameworks... once this is done, I'll delete/redirect the "List of" page. Ian Bailey 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, i've seen this else where, having a table is better as you get to sort by the headings rather than a list which can only ever be under fixed headings. It also gives you the ability to display other common information, in this case such as licenses, which would be difficult to do otherwise. I see no reason to keep the list providing the table has the data merged into it. --Hm2k (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Not sure what page you're on, but the list was merged back in March.  --Hm2k (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[List of web application frameworks]] into [[Comparison of web application frameworks]] 

message: The slogan seems to exist in every single row, judging from cell colours. I wonder if anyone would dare not call his work an MVC framework. So, do we still need this column? I would remove it as uninformative. Also some rows mention the ActiveRecorn pattern instead, which I do not understand. What the data access approach has to do with layer separation? viny.tell // 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first added this column, the intent was to document the underlying technologies, however, this may not be applicable to all frameworks. I have already pulled out the Push/Pull property, and I have no problem with making this column more explicit. I do agree that any column with all Yes entries is various redundantIan Bailey 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What about changing MVC to architecture type with MVC as an option. There are other types of patters/architectures like PAC that are common but MVC is the current buzz word. This may be more fair to other technologies and better represent the intent of this page.Matt Farina Friday, April 4, 2008 at 14:25:03 UTC  —Preceding comment was added at 14:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model-View-Controller 

message: I'm not sure why it says "ActiveRecord" for the "MVC framework" column for Grails. I don't believe it is a correct representation of Grails architecture. Then again, I don't think I understand the meaning of this column.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grails 

message: It would be useful to compare frameworks based on the languages. Many people just want to compare, for example, java, or, python based frameworks. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not to just use a sorting for that? Both tables here are sortable. --4th-otaku (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages-based Framework comparision 

message: Removed all advertisement words (such as Framework or MVC) from project titles.
Replaced all ext-linked projects titles with red wikilinks (keeping the ext-links for the time being).
Abbreviated some licenses for better observability and sorting.
Coloured row headers in the Features table.
Consolidated Struts2 rows with Apache Struts. Zope 2 & Zope 3 should also be consolidated as I believe.
Removed Serenity Application Platform as non-notable (proprietary, without an article or Features row).
Removed all  entries from the Push/Pull column. They should be disambiguated with Push, Pull or .
--4th-otaku (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous change of 19:39, 11 May 2009 made Zend "Push & Pull" without the "Yes" styling. No comment as to why. I added it. -- Jackrepenning (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big edit 

message: The tables are too long and should be divided into subsections by language, to make the article more accessible. Language with less than 4 entries can be placed under "Other". --Hm2k (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.   To make it more readable, all you need to do is show the column headers every 20 rows so that as you scroll down the page you can always see the column row names.   I do agree though that making another table that is sorted a different way would be very useful!  Mozkill (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of these solutions would be suitable. Sorting would be compromised and having more than one table with the same data would be inappropriate. --Hm2k (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections are too long 

message: The table with features is not correct. I just noticed that Wicket and Tapestry have ORM support. They do not. They solve just the web tier.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.88.223.10 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to edit the table yourself. Also note that new sections should be added at the bottom. --Hm2k (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features 

message: It's a lot of work to make an entry and very easy to remove one. Before making an independent decision that an entry does not belong and removing it please discuss it here. I am not against removing extraneous, "not notable" entries but believe such decisions should be made when possible by the article's editing community rather than any single editor. JoJo (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Hm2k (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not arguing that we should discuss the removal of entries that are clearly more vanity than substance. My point is that no one person should take on the role of judge and jury for entries that are sourced and have at least a Wikipedia article (though a blue link is decidedly no indication of notability). Jojalozzo (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia encourages you to be bold, thus I have removed entries I think should be removed. If you think any of the entries I have removed should be re-added, feel free to discuss them, but I will be expecting justification and notability from reliable sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines. --Hm2k (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That "Be Bold" page you ref'd also warns "Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly ... there are some significant changes that can be long-lasting and that are harder to fix..." "Be not too bold." - Edmund Spenser Jojalozzo (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, if you feel I removed something that should be kept, provide notability and we'll add it back. --Hm2k (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia BOLD policy is moderated and balanced by PRESERVE policy. Because of this the bold approach requires diplomacy and skill. As I understand it, in the case of a disputed deletion, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle goes into the discuss phase with the deletion reverted to avoid an edit war. Do you agree? Jojalozzo (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interesting in discussing the cleanup any further. Do not revert. Restoring entries that do not have notability is counter productive. However, you may restore any entries that you can locate notability for. --Hm2k (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals for Removal of Entries 

message: how about the second? Raffethefirst (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yii framework apears onli in first comparison list 

message: Does pyjamas fit in this page?  It is not a full stack framework.  Once complied, it runs entirely in the browser.  It can be combined with any JSONRPC capable framework to provide a client side view (display and manipulation).  If it belongs on this page at all, it needs to be clear that it does not provide server side execution, but would be used as part of/alongside a larger framework.
(It looks pretty cool, and I'm thinking about trying it out.  It just doesn't seem to fit the theme of this page.)
:1) answer the question from the perspective of the other "-to-javascript" compiler, GWT.  "Does GWT fit in this page? It is not a full stack framework.  Once compiled, it runs ...."  so - if there is a justification for removing Pyjamas from the page, then there is also the exact same justification for removing GWT from the page.  2) you would also need to remove all other javascript-only web application frameworks from the page, at the same time.  3) also: not _all_ applications need a server-side framework in order to be useful [or entertaining].  for example, the "Slideshow" example and the Bookreader example make use simply of HTTPRequest (AJAX) to fetch the slides, chapters etc.  for example, the SVG "widget" example tells the time.  that's useful.  no server-side framework is required.  for example, the "lightout" example provides entertainment value.  no server-side framework is required. 4) i think the question you're asking is more appropriately phrased as "what is the definition of a web application framework?".  let's take a look at the wikipedia definition: "A web application framework is a software framework that is designed to support the development of dynamic websites, Web applications and Web services. The framework aims to alleviate the overhead associated with common activities performed in Web development. For example, many frameworks provide libraries for database access, templating frameworks and session management, and often promote code reuse.".  i'd say that both GWT and pyjamas fit squarely and directly with that definition.  5) you're not restricted to _just_ JSONRPC with pyjamas.  User:lkcl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.94.29 (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Justifying pyjamas' presence on the page by reference to GWT doesn't help it any, since GWT is not listed in the left-hand column of any of the tables (because it is also not a server-side framework).  From what I can tell, pyjamas should not be listed amongst the other items it's currently with as that would severely confuse anyone who wasn't already familiar with it. PeterHansen (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Hm2k (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyjamas 

message: I'm asking this with context with the version numbers that are constantly getting updated on this article and others which are out of date. Do we need version numbers here at all? If so, do we need the exact version or can the major version cover it instead? (eg: 3 instead of 3.2.1). However, I'm not sure the inclusion of them in any encyclopedia is justified at all. I've never seen version numbers in any other encycolpedia. So it begs the question: Are version numbers encyclopedic? --Hm2k (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles of this type have version number, although without release date it's not that useful. I've started adding a release date column. Greenman (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Many software articles now have a "version" template, which they update once, and include on many. It saves updating it everywhere. I believe this is how it should be done. --Hm2k (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Are version numbers encyclopedic?

message: Hello,
what about to add the comparison/review site to the link list:
http://www.bestwebframeworks.com/
WebDevRoot (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Hm, why have the language column for the PHP, Java & Python frameworks, as they are all under the categories PHP, Java & Python.
85.229.221.227 (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language column 

message: As is the convention on other list and comparison articles (WP:WTAF and WP:LIST), I'd like to start removing red links and external links from this article. Without an article to follow up with, the data listed here is useless to readers, probably out of date in most cases, not notable, and detracts from the overall article with clutter. If the framework is notable, it should have an article, and can then be listed here. Greenman (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take that as a yes :) Greenman (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing redlinks 

message: ModX Revolution should be part of this comparison.
It's still in beta but already more than promising.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ModX Revolution 

message: The comparison table includes software like Drupal. You could use its libraries as a framework but it's mainly a content management system (CMS), should we remove these CMSs from the frameworks table? Ekerazha (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Framework or CMS? 

message: Any reason Kohana isn't mentioned? Is it legit? Can someone add to the PHP table?Areback (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WTAF, it needs an article first. Greenman (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or WP:N, notability would suffice. Also see WP:SOFIXIT. --Hm2k (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kohana 

message: I am going to remove the "DB migration framework(s)" column as it should not be mixed in the Comparison of web application frameworks. I know some frameworks are too much intermingled but that is not a good thing. I should be able to use the DB migration framework and the web application frameworks separately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.227.10 (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. ekerazha (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DB migration framework(s) 

message: I propose to fully revamp this article:
* General and Comparison of Features should have the same entries.
* Remove entries without article and external linked items.
* Clean the references section. 
* Remove the DB migration framework(s) column (opinions?).
* Tables are bloated, there are unstyled entries etc. I think we should have Yes (green), No (red), Depends/Plugin (yellow) and leave deeper descriptions to the specific articles. Maybe just a small disambiguation for things like Push/Pull. No more things like "No but there's a similar thing if you install this" inside cells.
* Remove the Python 3.* column from the Python table (merge to the Language column).
-- ekerazha (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revamp