Choosing between JHipster and Spring boot plus angular separately - jhipster

As a junior developer I am struggling to decide which approach should I use for a prototype. Given two separate apps (Java Spring Boot and Angular) I can learn many things from scratch. On the other hand JHipster provides a skeleton and a lot of already working components to copy paste.
So what do you recommend for a junior? Should I jump to JHipster or should I built everything myself in order to conquer the basics? Would it be possible to conquer the basics from a top down approach (JHipster)??
Note: I understand that Jhipster allows the easy integration of other components f.e. provides easy docker support. But still, I am not sure whether this approach is better for someone still on the learning curve.

It depends on the time you have for the prototype and if the result is really important.
Solution 1: if you have a lot of time to learn, you can start from scratch and try to build everything on your own. Then, you use JHipster and can compare what you did with JHipster, and use JHipster as a modele (as we try to keep best practices). You can take some code and integrate it to your project but not sure it will work easily. And you will see there are some parts which are really hard to code yourself as they impact all your project (ex: security)
Solution 2: use directly JHipster and focus on your use cases, using the generated codes of JHipster as example. You will learn with a good base code. And you have a good community on stackoverflow and gitter to help you.
As a JHipster team member, I would suggest the solution 2, of course :-)

Related

Is there any alternative for Deptrac in Nodejs?

Deptrac is a static code analysis tool for PHP that helps you communicate, visualize and enforce architectural decisions in your projects. I want Something like this in Nodejs to be able to enforce my clean coding practices in Nodejs projects.
Please do suggest, if you've come across any tools like this in nodejs environment.
I have used dependency-cruiser in a few projects. So far it has been able to fulfill all my needs.

HapiJS and mongoDB project scaffold

Coming from SQL and other "regular dev" methodologies (Ruby, Java, ,.NET) I've been looking for a while now on a good HapiJS project scaffold using mongoDB.
I can't find a one that really hit the spot.
What is the correct project structure? What is the best way to treat models? and more...
I know there are couple of resources out there, but I can't seem to find a one that really explain and justifies these design decisions.
Depends what you want there is hapi-mongo-models and dogwater. I am currently writing models for mongo with wadofgum as its extensible and have started writing wadofgum-mongodb but just early proof of concept at the moment. With wadofgum you can combine your own validation, methods and database for modelling data objects which I find useful.
There are some starters/scaffolds available for hapi.
You could look at these two for example - they both use MongoDB and provide a good starting point:
Frame
hapi-dash
There are more on the official hapi website under Resources/Boilerplates.
If you are looking for something like yeoman generators you could find these two for example:
generator-hapi-service
generator-hapi-rest-api
I hope this helps.

BDD with Cucumber to guide Chef development

I like a lot Cucumber and I find a very useful tool to solve problems seeing them with an outside-in approach so I would like to use it as part of chef projects too. I have successfully integrated it into the project I'm working on but at the time of writing business goal of features I have some doubts.
Who is the end user here?
Regarding on this the feature will be more service oriented or not, ie:
If the feature is more architecture faced the I could write a MongoDB feature which describes that I need up and running a MongoDB service and that the applications is linked to it.
In the other hand I should just write application features, forgetting about the infrastructure behind and then assume that if the cucumber tests run well for the application then it means that the infrastructure is fine too. (I dont like this approach)
Which of the both approaches are better? I like the most the first one but I'm just a noob on these lands. Please give me your considerations.

Is using Node.js or Ringojs safe for live websites?

As stated in the title, I would like to know if it's safe to develop a website using one of the actuals "omg" platforms that are Node.js and Ringo.js at their actual version.
Also, I would like to know if they support cookies/sessions and how do they deals with multi-fields post (fieldname[] in PHP).
Thank you
--Edit--
Thanks for all the links guys.
What can you tell me about Ringojs ?
Since I haven't figured which platform to start playing with. I must admit that the fact it can use Java seamlessly really impress me. The only available XSLT 2.0 library is in Java. I could use it as a templating system.
Is there anyone who had the chance to play with Ringojs?
From my experience using both, Ringo is more stable and "safer" for production use but you can comfortably deploy both. In addition to the ability to wrap existing Java libraries that you mention, you also get the benefit of being able to run it in an existing webapp container which manages the lifecycle of the application for you and ensures its availability.
That being said, it doesn't have to be an either or decision. By using my common-node package and assuming you don't use any Java libraries, it's perfectly feasible to maintain a project that runs on both without any changes to the code.
I've also included benchmarks that test the performance of Node.js vs. RingoJS the results of which you can find in the common-node/README.md. To summarize: RingoJS has slightly lower throughput than Node.js, but much lower variance in response times while using six times the RAM with default Java settings. The latter can be tweaked and brought down to as little as twice the memory usage of Node with e.g. my ringo-sunserver but at the expense of decreased performance.
Node.js is stable, so yes it's safe to use. Node.js is capable of handling cookies, sessions, and multiple fields but are not as easy to manage. Web frameworks solve this problem.
I recommend Express.js, it's an open-source web framework for Node.js which handles all of this and more.
You can download it here:
https://github.com/visionmedia/express
I hope this helped!
Examples of some of the bigger sites running Node.js
https://www.learnboost.com/
http://ge.tt/
https://gomockingbird.com/
https://secured.milewise.com/
http://voxer.com/
https://www.yammer.com/
http://cloud9ide.com/
http://beta.etherpad.org/
http://loggly.com/
http://wordsquared.com/
Yes. It is. https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Projects,-Applications,-and-Companies-Using-Node and https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/modules
cookies/sessions/forms etc http://expressjs.com/ makes it easier
Ringojs is a framework developed by Hannes Wallnöver and uses rhino as it's scripting framework. There are webframeworks, templating-engines, orm-packages and many many more things already available. Have a look at the tutorial featuring a good subset of packages you may use for a simple web-application. It's not too long and straightforward.
Even thought some of those packages used within the tutorial (e.g. ringo-sqlstore]) are marked as 0.8 and come with the hint "consider this being beta" they are already very stable and bugs - if you find one - get fixed or commented on very fast.
And the power of uncountable java-libraries out there is at your fingertips - so if you already have java-knowledge this knowledge isn't wasted. Rhino - the scripting-engine - even enables you to implement interfaces and extend classes. It is possible a little more advanced but i've done it and i know of packages taking advantage of such features (like ringo-ftpserver which is a wrapper around Apache FtpServer written in java)
Another pro for me is - because ringojs is based on java - it works fairly well with multithreading with ringo/worker for example.

How can I still use DDD, TDD in BizTalk?

I just started getting into BizTalk at work and would love to keep using everything I've learned about DDD, TDD, etc. Is this even possible or am I always going to have to use the Visio like editors when creating things like pipelines and orchestrations?
You can certainly apply a lot of the concepts of TDD and DDD to BizTalk development.
You can design and develop around the concept of domain objects (although in BizTalk and integration development I often find interface objects or contract first design to be a more useful way of thinking - what messages get passed around at my interfaces). And you can also follow the 'Build the simplest possible thing that will work' and 'only build things that make tests pass' philosophies of TDD.
However, your question sounds like you are asking more about the code-centric sides of these design and development approaches.
Am I right that you would like to be able to follow the test driven development approach of first writing a unti test that exercises a requirement and fails, then writing a method that fulfils the requirement and causes the test to pass - all within a traditional programing language like C#?
For that, unfortunately, the answer is no. The majority of BizTalk artifacts (pipelines, maps, orchestrations...) can only really be built using the Visual Studio BizTalk plugins. There are ways of viewing the underlying c# code, but one would never want to try and directly develop this code.
There are two tools BizUnit and BizUnit Extensions that give some ability to control the execution of BizTalk applications and test them but this really only gets you to the point of performing more controled and more test driven integration tests.
The shapes that you drag onto the Orchestration design surface will largely just do their thing as one opaque unit of execution. And Orchestrations, pipelines, maps etc... all these things are largely intended to be executed (and tested) within an entire BizTalk solution.
Good design practices (taking pointers from approaches like TDD) will lead to breaking BizTalk solutions into smaller, more modular and testable chunks, and are there are ways of testing things like pipelines in isolation.
But the detailed specifics of TDD and DDD in code sadly don't translate.
For some related discussion that may be useful see this question:
Mocking WebService consumed by a Biztalk Request-Response port
If you often make use of pipelines and custom pipeline components in BizTalk, you might find my own PipelineTesting library useful. It allows you to use NUnit (or whatever other testing framework you prefer) to create automated tests for complete pipelines, specific pipeline components or even schemas (such as flat file schemas).
It's pretty useful if you use this kind of functionality, if I may say so myself (I make heavy use of it on my own projects).
You can find an introduction to the library here, and the full code on github. There's also some more detailed documentation on its wiki.
I agree with the comments by CKarras. Many people have cited that as their reason for not liking the BizUnit framework. But take a look at BizUnit 3.0. It has an object model that allows you to write the entire test step in C#/VB instead of XML. BizUnitExtensions is being upgraded to the new object model as well.
The advantages of the XML based system is that it is easier to generate test steps and there is no need to recompile when you update the steps. In my own Extensions library, I found the XmlPokeStep (inspired by NAnt) to be very useful. My team could update test step xml on the fly. For example, lets say we had to call a webservice that created a customer record and then checked a database for that same record. Now if the webservice returned the ID (dynamically generated), we could update the test step for the next step on the fly (not in the same xml file of course) and then use that to check the database.
From a coding perspective, the intellisense should be addressed now in BizUnit 3.0. The lack of an XSD did make things difficult in the past. I'm hoping to get an XSD out that will aid in the intellisense. There were some snippets as well for an old version of BizUnit but those havent been updated, maybe if theres time I'll give that a go.
But coming back to the TDD issue, if you take some of the intent behind TDD - the specification or behavior driven element, then you can apply it to some extent to Biztalk development as well because BizTalk is based heavily on contract driven development. So you can specify your interfaces first and create stub orchestrations etc to handle them and then build out the core. You could write the BizUnit tests at that time. I wish there were some tools that could automate this process but right now there arent.
Using frameworks such as the ESB guidance can also help give you a base platform to work off so you can implement the major use cases through your system iteratively.
Just a few thoughts. Hope this helps. I think its worth blogging about more extensively.
This is a good topic to discuss.Do ping me if you have any questions or we can always discuss more over here.
Rgds
Benjy
You could use BizUnit to create and reuse generic test cases both in code and excel(for functional scenarios)
http://www.codeplex.com/bizunit
BizTalk Server 2009 is expected to have more IDE integrated testability.
Cheers
Hemil.
BizUnit is really a pain to use because all the tests are written in XML instead of a programming language.
In our projects, we have "ported" parts of BizUnit to a plain old C# test framework. This allows us to use BizUnit's library of steps directly in C# NUnit/MSTest code. This makes tests that are easier to write (using VS Intellisense), more flexible, and most important, easier to debug in case of a test failure. The main drawback of this approach is that we have forked from the main BizUnit source.
Another interesting option I would consider for future projects is BooUnit, which is a Boo wrapper on top of BizUnit. It has advantages similar to our BizUnit "port", but also has the advantage of still using BizUnit instead of forking from it.

Resources