Enable javascript in your browser for better experience. Need to know to enable it? Go here.
Last updated : Jul 08, 2014
不在本期内容中
这一条目不在当前版本的技术雷达中。如果它出现在最近几期中,那么它很有可能仍然具有相关参考价值。如果这一条目出现在更早的雷达中,那么它很有可能已经不再具有相关性,我们的评估将不再适用于当下。很遗憾我们没有足够的带宽来持续评估以往的雷达内容。 了解更多
Jul 2014
试验 ? 值得一试。了解为何要构建这一能力是很重要的。企业应当在风险可控的前提下在项目中尝试应用此项技术。
The Play Framework 2 blip has generated many internal discussions. We had competing suggestions to move it to adopt and hold. These differences relate primarily to the specific applications for which it is used, how it is used, and what expectations people have for it. While none of these issues are unique for Play, Play has generated far more controversy than is typical in the standard library versus framework debate. We reiterate the cautions stated in the previous radar, and we will monitor how Play continues to mature to support its sweet spot.
Jan 2014
试验 ? 值得一试。了解为何要构建这一能力是很重要的。企业应当在风险可控的前提下在项目中尝试应用此项技术。
May 2013
试验 ? 值得一试。了解为何要构建这一能力是很重要的。企业应当在风险可控的前提下在项目中尝试应用此项技术。
The recent release of Play Framework 2.1.1 with support for controller dependency injection, asynchronous, non-blocking I/O, a code-reload workflow, database migrations, asset pipelining, and flexible deployment options has made it more attractive to developers. For this reason Play re-appears on the radar as something for teams to seriously consider when building web applications and services on the JVM. A word of caution however, Play embraces a functional programming style which, when working with the Java language, still translates into a plethora of static methods that may be difficult to unit test outside a running server.
已发布 : May 22, 2013
Radar

下载第25期技术雷达

English | Español | Português | 中文

Radar

获取最新技术洞见

 

立即订阅

查看存档并阅读往期内容