I think a lot of the issues can be addressed via a good template which sets up all the boiler plate, demonstrates idiomatic usage, and defaults to some common libraries. I'm actively working on filling this gap with the Luminus<http://www.luminusweb.net/>, which aims to make it easy to get rolling, and sets up all the basic things like sessions, static resources, packaging, etc.
On Friday, January 11, 2013 11:52:05 AM UTC-5, Paul Umbers wrote: > > I've been experimenting with Clojure web services recently, and posting > the work on GitHub <https://github.com/3rddog/doitnow> and my > blog<http://internistic.blogspot.ca/search/label/clojure> > . > > When putting this test app together, it occurred to me that most other > languages have a full-stack API available which makes life easier when it > comes to making decisions about which libraries/APIs/frameworks to use. It > also reduces the possibility of "impedance mismatch" between the libraries. > For Java, you can use Spring (or any one of a dozen or more other popular > frameworks), for Scala there's Typesafe, and so on. Clojure has Compojure, > Ring, several logging, validation and database libraries, and they can be > used together but they don't constitute a coordinated full stack - and that > creates issues. > > For example, the latest vesion of Compojure (1.1.3) uses Ring 1.1.5 and > not the latest version of Ring (1.1.6) which has significantly better util > functions available - but I can't use them until Compojure catches up. By > the time you add logging, validation, data access, etc the odds of a > mismatch between these libraries goes up dramatically. > > This is a concern, because these mismatches must be worked around in *my*code > and are likely to break as the libraries are upgraded in future > versions. So, I'm having to spend my time maintaining what are essentially > "patches" for third-party libraries just so that they work together. > > Now, it may not be the best decision to try to put together a true > full-stack framework from scratch, but is it worth choosing a bunch of > existing frameworks and coordinating their releases - in much the same way > as Eclipse coordinates plugin releases for major releases - so that putting > together a full-stack app becomes easier? > > Projects taking part in the "meta-project" will work together to harmonize > their functionality & APIs, and coordinate their development cycles & > releases so that the meta-framework remains consistent and easily usable. > > Is this another barrier to adoption the Clojure community can remove? Is > this even a barrier? Am I missing something? > > Thoughts? > > [Also posted to http://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure] > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
