Web Client Software Factory vs MonoRail

March 15th, 2007

David Hayden asks “Can MonoRail compete with WCSF?”. I’d rather say “Can WCSF compete with MonoRail?” ;-)

A fair analysis would require a deep understanding of both projects. I’ll investigate WCSF in a near future, but for now, I’ll just give David some clues about some MonoRail features, as he lists what WCSF is going to support:

- Data-Drive UI: I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that. I can say that MonoRail has scaffolding support and a combination of FormHelper/DataBindAttribute is enough to save you a good number of repetitive lines of code.

- Validation: Castle has the Castle.Component.Validator, and MonoRail is fully integrated to it. This screencast might explain it a little better.

- UI Responsiveness: is that Ajax? MonoRail just relies on prototype to offer ajax support, although you can use any library you want. MonoRail also supports JS generation for more complex scenarios.

- Complex workflows: not sure what that means. As Ayende pointed out, we have wizard support.

On top of that, if you know what you’re doing, you can enable Windsor integration. That means that MonoRail will use Windsor to resolve Controllers, ViewComponents and Filters (optionally). So you gain all facilities and features offered by Windsor on your MR project. If you don’t like Windsor, you can even use Spring.

And last but not least, Castle is an OSS project with a strong community behind. Want to ask us “why did you implement this way and not some different way?”, join the list. Bumped into a bug, check our issue tracker. Want to ask a lightweight question, check our forum. And if you show commitment to the project, you will gain access to our SVN. While for some these might be not important things to reason, it’s clearly becoming something to pay attention for a growing number of people.


Update: Brian has used both, and shared his thoughts.

6 Responses to “Web Client Software Factory vs MonoRail”

welcome to demarzo.net Says:

MonoRail vs Web Client Software Factory (WCSF)

MonoRail vs Web Client Software Factory (WCSF)

Brian Says:

You don’t have to convince me — MonoRail trumps WCSF and other alternatives, for many reasons.

Jeremy Miller Says:

I’ll add another huge advantage of MonoRail –>

Testability, which leads to…
Maintainability, which leads to…
Better Return on Investment

ROI *is* a compelling feature. ASP.Net WebForms needs to react to MonoRail and Igloo, not the other way around.

Dan Bunea Says:

I would definately say the same: Can WCSF compete with MR?

MR gives us simplicity, which leads to less code, faster debugging and more compex scenarios. The main problem with ASP.NET and related is complexity. A code behind can lead fast to a code impossible to debug, and to people afraid to change it. That code is dead. And as I see with MS Ajax, they are solving the compexity problems by amplifying it even more (more events, more build in components, more…). MS seem to think that simplicity means drag drop and a designer that generates thousends of lines of code. Code that needs to be debugged at a certain point = the beginning of the nightmare.

As Jeremy pointed out, testability (safety net), makes the code easier to change/debug/maintain, thus development is safer and much faster, especially as the project becomes big, completely oposite to ASP.NET and related.

Interesting finding - 03/15/2007 « Another .NET Blog Says:

[...] Web Client Software Factory vs MonoRail [...]

Samir Says:

I think Monorail give us simplicity and organization, its need more than that?
cheers,
Samir

Leave a Reply