After collecting some experience with smaller and larger JSF implementations i decided for me that this is our way to go for web app – this is not about any “xyz sucks” discussion. Its simply about feasibility and reusing the assets we have so far vs. platform footprint.
The question arises in a current project where the final product will live in hardware box with yet unspecified memory and CPU – for cost reasons it will be comparable to any modern router or access box. Does anybody have experience implementing
- A (simple) Java based web application
- Using JSF (vs. some “low profile” framework)
- Using a persistence framework vs. native H2
vs native SQLite vs File based persistence
on such a device?
The limit in this case will be put for your Web container + JVM + persistence framework. The overhead imposed by JSF or any other web framework will not be significant compared with the other elements in consideration. Tomcat works well in devices with limited memory.
QUESTION: Do you have some real world data (something like “a web page accessing simple sqlite data works in less then 32 MB within 500ms for 5 concurrent users”)?
The best information available is this article I wrote some weeks ago:
Understanding JSF 2 and Wicket: Performance Comparison . In the detailed document (memory section), there is a test running tomcat with 32 MB and an in-memory hsql database and 40 concurrent threads with server side (in memory) state saving. I think the trick is watch out for what you put in session scope, and that’s it.