It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Can someone please explain me what a software framework is? Why do we need a framework? What does a framework do to make programming easier?
I'm very late to answer it. But, I would like to share one example, which I only thought of today. If I told you to cut a piece of paper with dimensions 5m by 5m, then surely you would do that. But suppose I ask you to cut 1000 pieces of paper of the same dimensions. In this case, you won't do the measuring 1000 times; obviously, you would make a frame of 5m by 5m, and then with the help of it you would be able to cut 1000 pieces of paper in less time. So, what you did was make a framework which would do a specific type of task. Instead of performing the same type of task again and again for the same type of applications, you create a framework having all those facilities together in one nice packet, hence providing the abstraction for your application and more importantly many applications.
Technically, you don't need a framework. If you're making a really really simple site (think of the web back in 1992), you can just do it all with hard-coded HTML and some CSS.
And if you want to make a modern webapp, you don't actually need to use a framework for that, either.
You can instead choose to write all of the logic you need yourself, every time.
You can write your own data-persistence/storage layer, or - if you're too busy - just write custom SQL for every single database access.
You can write your own authentication and session handling layers.
And your own template rending logic.
And your own exception-handling logic.
And your own security functions.
And your own unit test framework to make sure it all works fine.
And your own... [goes on for quite a long time]
Then again, if you do use a framework, you'll be able to benefit from the good, usually peer-reviewed and very well tested work of dozens if not hundreds of other developers, who may well be better than you. You'll get to build what you want rapidly, without having to spend time building or worrying too much about the infrastructure items listed above.
You can get more done in less time, and know that the framework code you're using or extending is very likely to be done better than you doing it all yourself.
And the cost of this? Investing some time learning the framework. But - as virtually every web dev out there will attest - it's definitely worth the time spent learning to get massive (really, massive) benefits from using whatever framework you choose.
The summary at Wikipedia (Software Framework) (first google hit btw) explains it quite well:
A software framework, in computer programming, is an abstraction in which common code providing generic functionality can be selectively overridden or specialized by user code providing specific functionality. Frameworks are a special case of software libraries in that they are reusable abstractions of code wrapped in a well-defined Application programming interface (API), yet they contain some key distinguishing features that separate them from normal libraries.
Software frameworks have these distinguishing features that separate them from libraries or normal user applications:
inversion of control - In a framework, unlike in libraries or normal user applications, the overall program's flow of control is not dictated by the caller, but by the framework.[1]
default behavior - A framework has a default behavior. This default behavior must actually be some useful behavior and not a series of no-ops.
extensibility - A framework can be extended by the user usually by selective overriding or specialized by user code providing specific functionality.
non-modifiable framework code - The framework code, in general, is not allowed to be modified. Users can extend the framework, but not modify its code.
You may "need" it because it may provide you with a great shortcut when developing applications, since it contains lots of already written and tested functionality. The reason is quite similar to the reason we use software libraries.
A lot of good answers already, but let me see if I can give you another viewpoint.
Simplifying things by quite a bit, you can view a framework as an application that is complete except for the actual functionality. You plug in the functionality and PRESTO! you have an application.
Consider, say, a GUI framework. The framework contains everything you need to make an application. Indeed you can often trivially make a minimal application with very few lines of source that does absolutely nothing -- but it does give you window management, sub-window management, menus, button bars, etc. That's the framework side of things. By adding your application functionality and "plugging it in" to the right places in the framework you turn this empty app that does nothing more than window management, etc. into a real, full-blown application.
There are similar types of frameworks for web apps, for server-side apps, etc. In each case the framework provides the bulk of the tedious, repetitive code (hopefully) while you provide the actual problem domain functionality. (This is the ideal. In reality, of course, the success of the framework is highly variable.)
I stress again that this is the simplified view of what a framework is. I'm not using scary terms like "Inversion of Control" and the like although most frameworks have such scary concepts built-in. Since you're a beginner, I thought I'd spare you the jargon and go with an easy simile.
I'm not sure there's a clear-cut definition of "framework". Sometimes a large set of libraries is called a framework, but I think the typical use of the word is closer to the definition aioobe brought.
This very nice article sums up the difference between just a set of libraries and a framework:
A framework can be defined as a set of libraries that say “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”
How does a framework help you? Because instead of writing something from scratch, you basically just extend a given, working application. You get a lot of productivity this way - sometimes the resulting application can be far more elaborate than you could have done on your own in the same time frame - but you usually trade in a lot of flexibility.
A simple explanation is: A framework is a scaffold that you can you build applications around.
A framework generally provides some base functionality which you can use and extend to make more complex applications from, there are frameworks for all sorts of things. Microsofts MVC framework is a good example of this. It provides everything you need to get off the ground building website using the MVC pattern, it handles web requests, routes and the like. All you have to do is implement "Controllers" and provide "Views" which are two constructs defined by the MVC framework. The MVC framework then handles calling your controllers and rendering your views.
Perhaps not the best wording but I hope it helps
at the lowest level, a framework is an environment, where you are given a set of tools to work with
this tools come in the form of libraries, configuration files, etc.
this so-called "environment" provides you with the basic setup (error reportings, log files, language settings, etc)...which can be modified,extended and built upon.
People actually do not need frameworks, it's just a matter of wanting to save time, and others just a matter of personal preferences.
People will justify that with a framework, you don't have to code from scratch. But those are just people confusing libraries with frameworks.
I'm not being biased here, I am actually using a framework right now.
In General, A frame Work is real or Conceptual structure of intended to serve as a support or Guide for the building some thing that expands the structure into something useful...
A framework provides functionalities/solution to the particular problem area.
Definition from wiki:
A software framework, in computer
programming, is an abstraction in
which common code providing generic
functionality can be selectively
overridden or specialized by user code
providing specific functionality.
Frameworks are a special case of
software libraries in that they are
reusable abstractions of code wrapped
in a well-defined Application
programming interface (API), yet they
contain some key distinguishing
features that separate them from
normal libraries.
A framework helps us about using the "already created", a metaphore can be like,
think that earth material is the programming language,
and for example "a camera" is the program, and you decided to create a notebook. You don't need to recreate the camera everytime, you just use the earth framework (for example to a technology store) take the camera and integrate it to your notebook.
A framework has some functions that you may need. you maybe need some sort of arrays that have inbuilt sorting mechanisms. Or maybe you need a window where you want to place some controls, all that you can find in a framework. it's a kind of WORK that spans a FRAME around your own work.
EDIT:
OK I m about to dig what you guys were trying to tell me ;) you perhaps havent noticed the information between the lines "WORK that spans a FRAME around ..."
before this is getting fallen deeper n deeper. I try to give a floor to it hoping you're gracfully:
a good explanation to the question "Difference between a Library and a Framework" I found here
http://ifacethoughts.net/2007/06/04/difference-between-a-library-and-a-framework/
Beyond definitions, which are sometimes understandable only if you already understand, an example helped me.
I think I got a glimmer of understanding when loooking at sorting a list in .Net; an example of a framework providing a functionality that's tailored by user code providing specific functionality. Take List.Sort(IComparer). The sort algorithm, which resides in the .Net framework in the Sort method, needs to do a series of compares; does object A come before or after object B? But Sort itself has no clue how to do the compare; only the type being sorted knows that. You couldn't write a comparison sort algorithm that can be reused by many users and anticipate all the various types you'd be called upon to sort. You've got to leave that bit of work up to the user itself. So here, sort, aka the framework, calls back to a method in the user code, the type being sorted so it can do the compare. (Or a delegate can be used; same point.)
Did I get this right?
Related
I was trying to find an answer for my question today using google and StackOverflow search engines... but no luck :)
I was wondering what are the key features of every framework for end user, and how can you characterize every framework from the end-user point of view (I've looked into Framework Design Guidelines by K. Cwalina, but I've found only concepts and guidelines for framework architects), for me:
it should be extensible
should let build extensible and reusable components
and of course : Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alan_Kay)
I think there is much more out there.
Please share your knowledge.
Here are two good quotes from Ralph Johnson and Brian Foote
A framework is a reusable, ``semi-complete'' application that can be specialized to produce custom applications
One important characteristic of a framework is that the methods defined by the user to tailor the framework will often be called from within the framework itself, rather than from the user's application code. The framework often plays the role of the main program in coordinating and sequencing application activity. This inversion of control gives frameworks the power to serve as extensible skeletons. The methods supplied by the user tailor the generic algorithms defined in the framework for a particular application.
There was a special issue of CACM that you might want to take a look at too.
Here's one more link The Hollywood Principal. "Don't call us, we'll call you." About how the framework inverts the typical control so the framework calls your code instead of you calling some library code.
It sounds like you just want to know what is the defining characteristic of a framework...?
From FOLDOC:
In object-oriented systems, a set of classes that embodies an abstract design for solutions to a number of related problems.
So basically, a class library ("set of classes") that's extensible ("embodies an abstract design"),
I'll attempt a definition based on my own understanding: A framework is a body of code that abstracts a subset of tasks common to some classes of application programs. The intent is to provide, once, proven and tested code so that application programming doesn't have to keep re-inventing code for the common tasks handled by the framework.
In real life, frameworks often spring into being when a programmer or team get carried away with generalizing and future-proofing what started out as a single application. There's an honorable intent to start code re-use, but it often turns out that such frameworks aren't designed with intent from the beginning, don't have consistent design reflecting this intent, and are actually lousy code that ends up not being re-used at all. Most architects who feel qualified to create frameworks, aren't.
The difference between libraries and frameworks: You call libraries. Frameworks call you.
Answering your question covering the depth it deserves is beyond the scope of this forum. All you should do is read this book though its focused on .Net frmaework specifically and written by the designers of the .Net framework, I'm sure the wisdom and information that this book provides would be sufficient to answer your question and satisfy your curiosities on the subject.
Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for Reusable .NET Libraries (2nd Edition)
alt text http://www.lybrary.com/images/0321605012.jpg
A Framework is for me a other name for a Library (like Boost and many others) that is not about only one Topic (there are Librarys about Math, Networking, whatever out there, but these are no Frameworks) and it is of course Extensible and you can combine the Features of it to do your Job.
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 13 years ago.
Out in the dev lang there are many many, frameworks for all types of languages. For instance, javascript has jQuery, which I use all the time without even thinking about it. Then for php there is Zend and CodeIgnitor, Ruby has rails, Python has django. That's just a few off the top of my head.
I have always been the type of person that was against a framework, especially for PHP. I was always under the impression that using a framework would make people conceive you as lazy developer or to have the inability to code in the raw format. However, for a while now I notice large projects are being made in these frameworks.
I am very curious as to what the opinions are of everyone. Does using a framework make you less of a developer then using raw code, also lets add in a variable and say that you don't already know all the ends and outs of the primary language?
I always lived by the idea that it's better to write everything yourself...
... just to see how it works, then throw it away and use stable frameworks :)
While this may sound like a joke, there's much truth here -- rolling up something yourself will teach you a lot. And what you learn will allow you to better utilize what is already available.
See Not Invented Here.
Using the right framework gives you the ability to get actual, real work done. This means, IMO, you're more of a programmer, not less.
A good framework is indispensable in Javascript, to tide you over all kinds of incompatibilities between browsers that would otherwise drive you crazy. In languages where you have more control over the runtime environment, it's not indispensable, but it can supply you with a lot of useful functionality and stop you from reinventing the wheel -- so using the right framework for the task (which may not necessarily be the most popular one, if what you're doing is a better match for a different framework, perhaps a lighter-weight or somewhat specialized one) doesn't make you a lesser programmer, it makes you an intelligent one;-).
Understanding what's going on at (at least) just below the layer of abstraction you're coding to is an excellent idea (partly due to Joel's "law of leaky abstractions"), but that's no reason not to use a lower level of abstraction than available and suitable, except in a "learning and experimenting way" (i.e. not in production work;-).
Not using one makes you sure hell of a lot less productive however!
The only way to use 'raw code' is to write your programs in 0s and 1s. Otherwise, you are using a 'framework' of some sort. C is a layer on top of assembly which is a layer on top of machine code. That doesn't make a C programmer any less or a programmer - she is just working at a different level. In the same way, using a framework on top of PHP means you are just working at a different level. There are good programmer who build Zend (and other frameworks), and there are good programmers who use those frameworks to build business applications. Being an application level programmer is nothing to be ashamed of - it is hard work to do it right, whether or not you use a framework.
Davidmoreen, does using ASCII make you less of a programmer? I say, go ahead and make your life easier.
alt text http://prontiso.com/images/hardcore_keyboard.jpg
No more than using a language instead of raw binary does.
As the complexity of the tasks we are trying to accomplish increase, our only choice is to build on the foundations that others create. The main goal of any programmer should be to solve a business problem in a cost effective manner. If you don't solve real problems in a cost effective way then you definately less of a programmer.
I beleive it's important to understand the fundamentals of your tools and know how they work. THere'll be times when you need to work on the framework itself or just understand and debug what it's doing.
That said do you really need to remember to call session_start() at the beginning of every page load, or include the config files, or establish a database connection, or any one of the other minuetae that a framework will do for you and leave you to get on with creating the "unique" portions of your application?
I disagree with learining and using a framework without understanding the undelying language and concepts, but choosing to use one gives your code structure and makes you a lot more productive.
Being entirely dependent upon a framework makes you less of a developer. Using one as part of your toolkit when the need is there does not.
There is zealotry on both sides of the argument. You have the ones so starry-eyed about one particular framework that they use it for /everything/ (I usually see them in the form of beginner Railers or PHP programmers). Then you have the ones that are "hardcore" and as such "don't need hand holding", which more or less translates to them using last generation's frameworks instead (beacuse, after all, it's turtles all the way down).
It really comes down to knowing your framework. I would posit that using a framework without knowing its strong and weak points does indeed make you less of a programmer (if you are the one in charge of the decision), and should be counted as a cardinal sin. Study the frameworks, study the problem domain, make the informed choice, not the biased one.
Being able to make these kinds of decisions is what seperates good programmers from the... not-so-good ones.
I realize that this may be subjective but I truly need an answer to this and I can't seem to find anything close enough to it in the rest of the Forum. I have read some folks say that the framework (any MVC framework) can obscure too many things while others say that it can promote good practices. I realize that frameworks are great for a certain level of programmer but what about individuals starting out? Should one just focus on the language or learn them together?
I think web development is way more than anyone grasps when they first start getting into it! Read this and know that it is all optional...but required to be really good at what you do.
I suggest that you spend time learning your language first. I would suggest learning C# simply because it is vastly more marketable and it is usually directly supported in most of MS products. By learning C# - programming in ASP.NET, console apps, servers, services, desktop apps, etc. will all be within your reach. You can program for most of the MS products as well as on many Linux type platforms.
Once you have this down then you can move to programming for the web as programming for the web has some intricacies that most other environments don't have. Concepts such as sessions, caching, state management, cross site scripting, styling, client side vs server side programming, browser support, how HTTP works, get vs post, how a form works, cookies, etc. are all at the top of the list of things to learn separately not to mention learning the ASP.NET base frameworks and namespaces.
Once you have the programming language down and then the concepts of web programming I suggest that you pause and learn database design. Don't worry about performance just yet...try to first learn good design. Performance will come next. A good start for you is Access (blasphemy I know). It is easy for a beginner to work with. And it translates into a more robust platform such as SQL Server easily. Learn at the very least some SQL...but I suggest that you learn as much as your stomach can handle. I heard someone say that SQL is like the assembly language of the database. The number one thing that slows an application to a halt is piss poor database design and poor queries. Once you have this knowledge - stuff it away in the back of your mind and take a look at a good ORM. NHybernate is probably best at the moment but is more complex that the basic learner needs. For that reason I currently suggest getting LINQ to SQL up and running as it is SUPER EASY to work with. Then look at Entity Framework (although I still think it sucks...and you should wait till EF 2.0...ERRRRR...now 4.0 released with .net 4.0). Then NHybernate.
Now is the time to start to understand the infrastructure that is required by web development. You may bump your head against this as you learn some of the web programming stuff. But you need to understand the basics of DNS, IIS, load balancers, sticky routing, round robin, clustering, fault tolerance, server hardware setup, web farms, cache farms (MemCached Win32, Velocity), SMTP, MSMQ, database mail queuing, etc. Many people may say you don't need this. That there will be some knowledgeable network admin to help you out here. However they generally know things that impact them...not you. The more you know here the more valuable you will be to the company that hires you.
Now you can get into the details of best practices and design patterns. Learn about the basics such as repository pattern, factory pattern, facade pattern, model view presenter pattern, model view controller pattern, observer pattern, and various other things. Follow Martin Fowler and others for suggestions here. Take a look at concepts such as inversion of control, dependency injection, SOLID principle, DRY, FIT, test driven design, and domain driven design, etc. Learn as much as you can here before moving to the next step.
NOW you can think about frameworks! Start by creating a basic application with ASP Classic (comes with IIS for free!). This will give you a flavor of a no frills web development environment. Take a look at ASP.NET web forms (briefly) to see how MS attempted to make things easier by hiding all the complex stuff (which you now know how to manage on your own from your readings of the above materials!!!). Now you no longer need ASP.NET Web Forms. Move immediately to ASP.NET MVC. The MVC framwork gives you all the power you need to create a good easily manageable web application. If you build something really big no framework for pure web development may be able to deal with what you need. However MVC is way more extensible for such UBER custom scenarios.
Now that you have made it through the journey to ASP.NET MVC you can take a look at things such as Microsofts Enterprise Application Blocks (such as they use at MySpace). Take a look at Elmah error logging (a must have). Look at how to build a custom SiteMapProvider for your MVC site. If you need to get into searching stuff understand Lucene.NET.
And if you made it this far...you are ready to figure out the rest on your own as it comes up! Have fun. There is a lot of room in this space for a person with some understanding of all of the above concepts.
You'll be using SOME sort of framework. The question is, what level do you want to learn at?
You'll probably not care to learn about asynchronous I/O and mutlithreaded vs. select/poll styles of web servers.
So then, your language of choice is going to provide a layer atop this, the languages preferred "web interface" API. For Java it's Servlets, the lowest level you'd typically code at for server side web applications.
You should find what this "lower level" layer is in your language and learn the API at least. You should know basic HTTP like status codes, cookies, redirects, POST vs GET, URL encoding, and possibly what some of the more important headers do.
You'll then come to appreciate what these higher level frameworks bring to the table, and be better able to evaluate what is the appropriate level of abstraction for your needs/project.
Web development requires a certain degree of organization, since it relies so much on separation of concerns. The browser, for example, is designed to display data and interact with the user. It is not designed to lookup data from a database, or perform analysis. Consequently, a web development framework can help provide services that are needed to make the browser experience a practical one.
The nice thing about employing a platform is that it will provide core components essential to the making of any web application that you won't (and shouldn't) have to think about, such as user membership, for example. Many of the design decisions and deep thinking about how to implement these services has already been done for you, freeing you to focus on what you actually want you application to do.
Of the available frameworks, I find that frameworks that implement the MVC (model-view-controller) pattern are very practical. They clearly organize different functions of web development, while giving you full control over the markup presented to the browser.
All that said, you will need some fundamental skills to fully realize web development, such as HTML, CSS, and a core programming language for the actual underlying program, whether you use a platform or not.
I don't think I agree with the Andrew. I don't think learning C is a pre requisite for web development. In fact, learning something like Javascript, Action-script or PHP is often easier due in large part to the vast numbers of sites and tutorials available, and are enough to expose you to the fundamentals of pretty much every programing language. Variable, Conditions, Loops and OOP. I just think learning C# introduces a lot of learning that isn't really relevant to web development such as pointers and memory management.
As for wether you should learn a framework first? Definitely not. Never ever. You need to be able to stand on your own two feet first and be comfortable with HTML/CSS, Server Side Scripting (PHP/ASP/Python/Ruby whatever) and love it or loathe it, but you're going to have to have a decent understanding of Flash and Action-script.
The order in which you learn these is entirely up to you. But my learning plan would go like this...
Start with HTML. It takes about half an hour to get the basics (it's made up of tags with attributes, end of lesson 1) and it's good to get it out of the way first.
Then start leaning CSS. You'll get the basics again, very quickly. But CSS is a minefield so expect to spend the rest of your life figuring it out.
Next up Action-script. Most people wouldn't agree with me, but bear with me. HTML and CSS aren't programming languages. Action-script is. And learning a programing language for the first time is difficult and tedious. The advantage Action-script has over most other languages is that the results are very visual. It's enjoyable to work with and you can sit back and take pride in your accomplishments at regular intervals. This isn't possible with server-side scripting languages or Javascript and there's a whole host of stuff you need to learn to get server side scripting up and running. You can't build space invaders in with PHP for example.
I've changed my thinking here. I would encourage beginners to ignore ActionScript and focus on Javascript. I still believe that being able to see stuff on screen quickly is a good motivator, but I would encourage people to look at canvas tag tutorials and frameworks. Javascript has come a long way since 2009, and is now the lingua franca of programming, so it's incredibly useful. My initial point about HTML and CSS not being programming languages still stands.
Then, you can start with your server side language. At the same time, you're going to have to figure out the database stuff. I recommend PHP and MySQL because it's free.
Again, I've changed my thinking here. I would encourage beginners to use Javascript on the backend (Node.js), and split their database learning between relational databases and noSql solutions such as Mongo.
Then.... learn your framework. Or better yet, roll your own. That's what I've been doing and it's supercharged my learning.
If you're getting into web development, You HAVE to know how those building blocks work. You don't have to be an expert in all the areas, but you should try to become an expert in at least one of them. If you start learning a framework before you get the fundamentals you'll be in a sticky middle ground where you don't understand why things don't work which will infuriate you, and anyone who has to work with you.
you should learn how to use framework because it would be helpfull for u in the future also it is easier to learn.
MVC will help you a lot .. trust me ... i was developing web project not using mvc and it is like mess ... (in the past there are no well know mvc and i never heard about it)
Short version: yes, and then some.
FWIW : This more generic answer may be of use to someone out there.
What: Frameworks take out tedium of using boiler-plate code again and again. They hide complexity and design issues under wizards and conventions. They also use special libraries, design patterns etc. in ways that are far from obvious to a beginner.
So using a framework is good for getting things done without knowing exactly how - like using an ATM without knowing the internals. You just add your code bits in certain places and things 'just work'.
HTML > CSS > Ruby > SQL > Rails/Javascript framework > Libraries would make for a good learning track. Rest you learn as you go along by being curious, hanging out on forums or as extended learning as need arises.
HOW: The problem starts the minute you step outside simple text-book examples (i.e. when you try to get it to do something even a bit different).
Decoding cryptic error messages when it seems like you've done everything right but things still don't work. Searching on error strings in forums may help out. Or just re-starting from scratch.
Reading up articles and books, videos, trial-and-error, hard-work, search-engines, stackoverflow/forums, local gurus, design articles, using libraries, source-code browsing are a good way to climb the learning curve gently and on a requirement basis.
Working-against-the-framework is the number one problem for beginners. Understanding what the framework expects is key to avoiding white-hair in this phase. Having enough insight to manually do what the framework automates may help reduce this second-guessing effort.
WHY: For more advanced debugging/design, it's good to know what the framework is doing under the hood esp. when things don't work as you planned. Initially you can take the help of local-gurus or forum gurus who've already done the hard work. Later as you go deeper you can take on more of that role. For example there's a "rebuilding rails" book which looks under the hood of Ruby on Rails.
Note: Some of the tips are oriented towards Ruby/Rails but you can easily substitute your favourite language/framework instead.
Update: This question was inspired by my larger quest for mapping ontologically the whole software systems architecture enchilada. I've written a blog post about it, and hopefully it will help clarify what I'm after.
Many, many, many frameworks and stacks that's event-driven have too much variation for my little head to get around. Is there somewhere some resources that defines the outline of a reasonable Application Event Model, what events there are, and what triggers are most common?
I've got my own framework with a plugin and event-driven architecture, but I want to open-source it, and as such would like to make it closer to some common ground as not to alienate people.
So to clarify; this is for an application, meaning setting up the environment, the dependencies, the data sources (like databases), and being a MVC framework setting up the model, the view, launching controllers / actions, and in the GUI various stages of the interface (header, content, columns, etc.).
Ideas? Thoughts? Pointers? (And I've made it language and platform neutral at this point)
I read your blog entry, which btw I found an extremely interesting read, but... this question does not seem to reflect the broadness of the issue you are presenting there.
What you are after is very abstract and theoretical. What I mean to say is that if you tie any of those ideas to actual technology you will find yourself 'stuck' with it. This is why many of us are reluctant to use any framework. Especially the 'relabeled' products suddenly claiming to conform to the trend. We choose mainly on the basis of what appears to be needed to reach a predetermined result.
Frameworks (or tools in general) that target the application architecture domain distinguish themselves primarily by the amount of responsibility they are designed to take on. Spring for example only deals with the concept of decoupling and is therefore easily adopted and useable in many situations. The quality of any framework is expressed in terms of how well the designers of such frameworks were able to keep their products within the boundaries of that responsibility. Some front-to-end products will do exactly the opposite, code generators being among the 'worst' of them.
To answer your question at the top of this page, I do not think there is a framework that does what you want at this time and I do not think there is a single model of how applications (should) work. Keep in mind though that the application architecture domain deals with technology more than it does with concepts. In other words: If it works and meets the requirements, then you're pretty much done.
That said, you might find something of value in agent-based systems.
Heh. Most developers pick the major framework they like the tools for and stick with it. That's usually the winning strategy. I sympathize with your desire not to marry a single vendor.
Keep in mind however, that in developing your own framework, you're going to end up tied to a single vendor anyway. :-)
Is there somewhere some resources that defines the outline of a reasonable
Application Event Model, what events there are, and what triggers are most common?
I don't think so.
From what I see, there are two kinds of models out there: those with a real framework with which you can make a working data entry dialog, and abstract meta-meta-models that are optimized for modeling themselves.
Try surveying a few current frameworks that have good documentation online and cross-reference the major terminology in a spreadsheet. It's an interesting exercise.
I'd have a look at Spring for Java, and the XT Framework Spring module (http://springmodules.dev.java.net/docs/reference/0.9/html/xt.html), which apparently supports event-driven architecture, as starting points. Spring has an MVC framework (inc. convention-based routing to controllers), db configuration (for Hibernate, particularly), plus full dependency injection support. There's also a mechanism in Spring for modularising your web apps, called Spring Slices. And it can be integrated with Jersey for building RESTful apps.
(Unfortunately, I tried to provide links to everything, but this place only lets new users post a single link. So you'll have to do some googling :) )
At what level of complexity is it mandatory to switch to an existing framework for web development?
What measurement of complexity is practical for web development? Code length? Feature list? Database Size?
If you work on several different sites then by using a common framework across all of them you can spend time working on the code rather than trying to remember what is located where and why.
I'd always use a framework of some sort, even if it's your own, as the uniformity will help you structure your project. Unless it's a one page static HTML project.
There is no mandatory limit however.
I don't think there is a level of complexity that necessitates a framework. For me whenever I am writing a dynamic site I immediately consider a framework, and if it will save me time, I use it(it almost always does, and I almost always do).
Consider that the question may be faulty. Many of the most complex websites don't use any popular, preexisting, framework. Google has their own web server and their own custom way of doing things, as does Amazon, and probably lots of other sites.
If a framework makes your task easier, or provides added value, go for it. However, when you get that framework you are tied to a new dependancy. I'm starting to essentially recreate a Joel on Software post, so I will redirect you here for more on adding unneeded dependencies to your code:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000007.html
All factors matter. You should measure how much time you can save using 3rd party framework and compare it to the risks of using other's code
Never "mandatory." Some problems are not well solved by any framework. It would be suggestible to switch to a framework when most of the code you are implementing has already be implemented by the framework in question in a way that suits your particular application. This saves you time, energy, and will most likely be more stable than the fresh code you would have written.
This is really two questions, you realize. :-) The answer to the first one is that it's never mandatory, but honestly, parsing HTML request parameters directly is pretty horrible right from the start. I don't want to do it even once, so I tend to go toward a framework relatively early on.
As far as what measurement is practical, well, what are you worried about? All of the descriptions that you list have value. Database size matters primarily for scaling, in my opinion (you can write a very simple app if you have a very simple schema, even if there are hundreds of thousands of rows in the database). The feature list will probably determine the number and complexity of UI pages, which will in turn help to dictate the code length.
There are frameworks that are there for getting moving very quickly with a simple blog, django or RoR all the way to enterprise full-stack applications Zope. Not to be tied to just the buzz world, you also have ASP.Net and J2EE, etc.
All frameworks and libraries are tools at your disposal. Determine which ones will make your life easier for your given project and use them.
I would say the reverse is true. At some point, your project gets so expansive, that you actually get slowed down by the shortcomings of the framework. For sufficiently large projects you may, in fact, be better off developing your own framework, to meet your own needs. I have seen many times where people were held back in the decisions they could make, or the work they could produce, because they were trying to do something that the framework didn't anticipate. And doing these things that the framework doesn't anticipate can be very troublesome. The nice thing about making your own framework, is that it can evolve with your project, to be a help to you system, instead of a hindrance.
So, to conclude, small projects should be use existing frameworks. Large projects should contain their own framework.