The result of the PoC was surprisingly interesting :) It ended up proposing both technologies instead of eliminating one of them. I found out, exploring available books, articles, blogs and websites, that despite being able to implement all sort of web applications, each technology has special characteristics, optimized to certain kinds of those applications. In practical terms, if we find out that JSF is better for a certain kind application, that’s because it would take more time and code to do the same with Vaadin. The inverse logic is also true. In order to understand that, we have to visit two fundamental concepts that have direct impact on web applications:
- Context of Use considers the user who will operate the application, the environment where the user is inserted, and the device the user is interacting with.
- Information Architecture considers the user of the application again, the business domain in which he or she works on and the content managed in that domain.
Notice in the figure bellow that the user is always the center of attention in both concepts. That’s because we are evaluating two frameworks that have direct impact on the way users interact with web applications.
Visiting the concepts above we have:
Some applications are available for internal purpose only, such as the ones available on the intranet, other applications are used by external users, such as the company website.
Users of internal applications are more homogeneous and in limited number, which means that the UI can be a bit more complex to allow faster user interactions. That explains the fight Microsoft Office vs. Google Docs. The last one is not yet fully acceptable in the office environment because it has less functionalities than Microsoft Office. It is, on the other hand, more complex and more expensive. However, a limited number of users to a larger number of features makes acceptable to have some additional costs with training sections to profit from the productivity features.
A company website targets heterogeneous users in unlimited environments. It is not possible to train all this people, thus simpler user interfaces with short and self-explanatory interactions are desirable.
Considering the environment, we would recommend Vaadin for homogeneous users in limited environments and JSF for heterogeneous users in unlimited environments.
In principle, good quality UI frameworks such as JSF and Vaadin can implement any business domain. The problem is how experienced the team is with the technology or how small is the learning curve to master it. Business is about timing and the technology that offers the best productivity will certainly win. If your team has previous experience with Swing then Vaadin is the natural choice. If the previous experience was more web-oriented, manipulating HTML, CSS ans Scripts, then JSF is recommended.
Content is a very relevant criterion for choosing between Vaadin and JSF. In case the application needs to deal with volumous content of any type, such as long textual descriptions, videos, presentations, animations, graphics, charts and so on, then JSF is the recommended over Vaadin because JSF uses a web content rendering strategy to profit from all content-types supported by web browsers without the need for additional plugins or tags. The support for multiple content is only available on Vaadin through the use of plugins, which must be individually assessed before adoption.
At last, but not least, we have the user, who is the most important criterion when choosing a UI framework. We would emphasize two aspects:
- User’s tasks: If the application is intensively operated by users then it is expected that it has more user’s tasks implemented. On the other hand, if the application is rarely used or has short intervals of intensive use, then there is a lower concentration of user’s tasks. According to the PoC, Vaadin is the technology that provides the best support on delivering user tasks with richer user interaction because of its fast visual response. JSF is less optimized on which concerns the user interaction.
In conclusion, instead of discarding one of these frameworks consider both on the shelf of the company’s architectural choices, but visit the criteria above to make sure that you are using the right technology to implement the expected solution. A simple way to apply those criteria would be to assign weights to each criterion, according to the project’s characteristics; set which technology is appropriate for each criterion; and sum the weights for each technology. The highest weight elects the technology to be used in the project.