Tag: Frameworks

Consistency over magic, please

The Groovy programming language is a JVM based scripting language. It is used by the Grails web framework and the Gradle build automation system.

Groovy has a language feature called Named argument constructors. This means that given a class with properties, for example

class Example {
  String text
}

you can initialize the properties directly when calling the constructor:

def example = new Example(text: ' This is an example. ')
assert example.text == ' This is an example. '

This is basically a shortcut for initializing the properties via explicit assignment:

def example = new Example()
example.text = ' This is an example. '
assert example.text == ' This is an example. '

So far so good.

Enter Grails

We use the aforementioned Grails framework for some of our web application projects. It is advertised on its website as featuring “convention-over-configuration” and “sensible defaults”. Grails uses the Groovy programming language, and a simple domain class looks just like a plain old Groovy class, except that it lives under the grails-app/domain directory (this is one of the convention-over-configuration aspects):

class Example {
  String text
}

As expected, you can initialize the property via regular assignment:

def example = new Example()
example.text = ' This is an example. '
assert example.text == ' This is an example. '

So one might expect that you can initialize it via a named argument constructor call as well:

def example = new Example(text: ' This is an example. ')
assert example.text == ' This is an example. '

And indeed, you can. But what’s this? Our assertion fails:

assert example.text == ' This is an example. '
               |    |
               |    false
               This is an example.

It is not directly obvious from the assertion failure output, but the property value is indeed no longer equal to the expected text: the leading and trailing spaces got trimmed!

I was surprised, but after some research in Grails documentation it turned out that it’s not a bug, but a feature. In the section on Data Binding, you can find the following sentence:

The mass property binding mechanism will by default automatically trim all Strings at binding time. To disable this behavior set the grails.databinding.trimStrings property to false in grails-app/conf/application.groovy.

Groovy’s named argument constructor feature is used as a data binding mechanism by Grails to bind web request parameters to a domain object. For this the default behavior was modified, so that strings are automatically trimmed. I can only guess that this is considered to be an instance of the “sensible defaults” mentioned on the Grails homepage.

To me personally this kind of surprising behavior is not a sensible default, and I think it goes against the Principle of least astonishement. I prefer consistency over “magic”.

Client-side web development: Drink the Kool-Aid or be cautious?

Client side web development is a fast-changing world. JavaScript libraries and frameworks come and go monthly. A couple of years ago jQuery was a huge thing, then AngularJS, and nowadays people use React or Vue.js with a state container like Redux. And so do we for new projects. Unfortunately, these modern client-side frameworks are based on the npm ecosystem, which is notoriously known for its dependency bloat. Even if you only have a couple of direct dependencies the package manager lock file will list hundreds of indirect dependencies. Experience has shown that lots of dependencies will result in a maintenance burden as time passes, especially when you have to do major version updates. Also, as mentioned above, frameworks come and then go out of fashion, and the maintainers of a framework move on to their next big thing pet project, leaving you and your project sitting on a barely or no longer maintained base, and frameworks can’t be easily replaced, because they tend to permeate every aspect of your application.

With this frustrating experience in mind we recently did an experiment for a new medium sized web project. We avoided frameworks and the npm ecosystem and only used JavaScript libraries with no or very few indirect dependencies, which really were necessary. Browsers have become better at being compatible to web standards, at least regarding the basics. Libraries like jQuery and poly-fills that paper over the incompatibilities can mostly be avoided — an interesting resource is the website You Might Not Need jQuery.

We still organised our views as components, and they are communicating via a very simple event dispatcher. Some things had to be done by foot, but not too much. It works, although the result is not as pure as it would have been with declarative views as facilitated by React and a functional state container like Redux. We’re still fans of the React+Redux approach and we’re using it happily (at least for now) for other projects, but we’re also skeptical regarding the long term costs, especially from relying on the npm ecosystem. Which approach will result in less maintenance burden? We don’t know yet. Time will tell.