Attended a meeting with Buzz. Not stated in his blog (in an obvious way) was something he said about not being a fan of big frameworks. I didn't write down his punchline, but it was a pretty pithy summary of the framework tradeoff.
IIRC, it was essentially this: you can wrestle with one or both of these technical problems.
- Boilerplate Code
- A Framework's Conceptual Model
Buzz's point seemed to be that you can often manage your own boilerplate more easily than you can come to grips with a framework. If one member of your sprint team handles reusable services, you can just ask them for a feature. You don't have to spend an hour reading other people's struggles.
After spending three months getting my brain wrapped around Spring Framework, I'm inclined toward partial, qualified agreement. Frameworks seem to have limited value until you're an expert in using them.
Layers and Layers
When wrestling with a new feature, you are forced to assume that you've understood its semantics. When you mock a framework element for test purposes, you're reduced to hope that your unit tests are sufficient. A unit tests of a mocked framework element only tests your assumptions. If you're not using the element's API correctly, your tests can't show that the framework will break or raise exceptions.
For new technology, you need to start with a technical spike to understand the framework. Then you can write unit tests that test against known framework behavior. Then you can write the real code that's based on the unit tests that are based on a spike that shows how the framework really works.
Using a technical spike for discovery and debugging can be challenging. You don't want to drag around your entire application just to create a spike. But you don't want to drop back to a trivial "hello world" spike that doesn't really apply to your context. You have to balance simplicity against realism.
For example, making JAX-RS requests to web services is aggravating to debug. You can spend many hours looking at boilerplate 401 and 404 errors wondering what's missing. You can't write the unit tests until you finally get something to work. Once you have something, you can replace real objects with mock objects.
If you already know JAX-RS features, it's easy. If you already know the RESTful service, it's not too bad. If you know neither JAX-RS nor the service, you don't have any clue which direction to turn. Did I misuse JAX-RS? Is something wrong in the request? Am I missing a required header? Did I leave something off the Accept header?
I finally had to give up creating spikes and debugging RESTful requests in Java. It turned out to be simpler to write a version of the REST client in Python. I used this to figure out how the real service really worked. Given a working Python spike, I could then save those interactions for WireMock.
Once I has a clue how the service worked, I could also write a mock server for some more sophisticated experiments. This was useful for debugging problems based on a failure to understand JAX-RS.
Yes. Rather than struggle with the framework, I wrote the client once in Python and then rewrote the client again in Java. It seemed quicker than trying to debug it in Java.
One contributing factor is the 1m 30s build time in Maven. Compare that with interactive Python at the >>> prompt.
Perhaps a smaller framework would have been better.