Re: [morph-developer] InstantiatingReflector

[Matt B. <gud...@ya...>]

Hi Ben,
Great suggestions.  Hopefully we'll be following
through on these.  Thanks for the exhaustive (in a
good way) analysis; I had come to similar conclusions
prior to jumping the Dozer ship, but haven't really
put Morph through its paces in more serious settings
yet.

-Matt


--- Ben Alex <ben...@ac...> wrote:

> Hi Matt
> 
> Matt Benson wrote:
> 
> > I have just committed your patch (with IIRC one
> > spelling correction) to HEAD.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > So how are you finding Morph compared to Dozer so
> far?
> 
> To compare and contrast, my interpretation of the
> two projects is:
> 
> Community size: Dozer is bigger
> Release frequency: Dozer is more frequent
> Download numbers: Dozer higher (6400 versus about
> 520)
> Version control: Dozer uses SourceForge (Morph is
> still public, though)
> Googlability: Dozer more easily found ("assembly",
> "assembler" etc)
> Documentation: Dozer has more reference and web site
> documentation
> Patch receptiveness: Both the Morph and Dozer
> communities are welcoming
> Configuration: Morph is 100% Spring configurable
> Architecture: Morph resonated with me
> Flexibility: Morph has proven very flexible for our
> needs
> Bugs: Morph hasn't had any that we have found *
> Logo and font on web site: Okay, okay, I'll stop
> now... :-)
> 
> * We have an Assembler interface which is used in a
> number of projects.
> To make Dozer work as we needed, we found a number
> of bugs that required
> patching in Dozer (which to their credit were
> applied expeditiously).
> Morph implemented the interface and passed the same
> unit tests without
> any bugs being found. That's not to assert that
> Morph is bug-free or
> Dozer is buggy by any means. It is simply asserting
> that for our usage
> patterns, unit tests and Assembler interface, we
> found bugs in Dozer and
> no bugs in Morph when being used an identical (and
> complex) way.
> 
> So, to sum it up, Dozer wins on the
> community-related dimensions whereas
> Morph, in my assessment, is a higher quality
> technical solution. I'd
> suggest more frequent releases and documentation
> would organically
> resolve Morph's community size, download numbers and
> Googlability.
> 
> We also need to bear in mind that neither project is
> phenomenally large
> or well-known in the enterprise Java community. Most
> Java developers
> needing to do assembly write code by hand. Some
> promotion of the role of
> assembly in modern architecture would benefit both
> projects.
> 
> Cheers
> Ben
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get
> the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief
> surveys - and earn cash
>
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> morph-developer mailing list
> mor...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/morph-developer
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097