Pros of jetty.project

• Established and widely-used Java web server and servlet container
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Highly configurable and customizable

Cons of jetty.project

• Learning curve can be steep for beginners
• May be overkill for simple web applications
• Regular updates and maintenance required

Code Comparison

Both repositories contain the same codebase, as they are the same project. Here's a sample from the Server.java file:

public class Server extends HandlerWrapper implements Graceful
{
    private static final Logger LOG = Log.getLogger(Server.class);

    private final ShutdownMonitor shutdownMonitor;
    private final Container _container = new Container();

Summary

As the repositories jetty.project and jetty.project are identical, there are no differences to compare. Jetty is a popular Java HTTP server and servlet container, known for its flexibility and performance. It offers a robust set of features for building web applications but may require some time to master for newcomers to the platform.

Pros of Spring Boot

• Provides a comprehensive, opinionated framework for rapid application development
• Offers auto-configuration and starter dependencies for easy setup
• Includes built-in production-ready features like metrics and health checks

Cons of Spring Boot

• Can be overkill for simple applications or microservices
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to the Spring ecosystem
• May have slower startup times compared to lightweight alternatives

Code Comparison

Spring Boot application setup:

@SpringBootApplication
public class Application {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        SpringApplication.run(Application.class, args);
    }
}

Jetty server setup:

Server server = new Server(8080);
ServletContextHandler context = new ServletContextHandler(ServletContextHandler.SESSIONS);
context.setContextPath("/");
server.setHandler(context);
server.start();
server.join();

Spring Boot focuses on providing a complete application framework with minimal configuration, while Jetty is primarily a servlet container and web server. Spring Boot abstracts away much of the server setup, whereas Jetty requires more explicit configuration. Spring Boot is better suited for full-fledged applications, while Jetty is often used as an embedded server or for simpler web applications.

Pros of Netty

• More flexible and customizable architecture
• Better performance for high-concurrency scenarios
• Broader protocol support, including custom protocols

Cons of Netty

• Steeper learning curve due to its flexibility
• Less out-of-the-box functionality compared to Jetty
• Requires more manual configuration for basic setups

Code Comparison

Jetty (Servlet-based HTTP server):

Server server = new Server(8080);
ServletHandler handler = new ServletHandler();
server.setHandler(handler);
handler.addServletWithMapping(HelloServlet.class, "/*");
server.start();

Netty (Custom HTTP server):

EventLoopGroup group = new NioEventLoopGroup();
ServerBootstrap b = new ServerBootstrap();
b.group(group)
 .channel(NioServerSocketChannel.class)
 .childHandler(new HttpServerInitializer());
b.bind(8080).sync();

Both Jetty and Netty are popular Java networking frameworks, but they serve different purposes. Jetty is primarily a servlet container and web server, while Netty is a more general-purpose networking framework. Netty offers greater flexibility and performance for complex networking applications, but comes with a steeper learning curve. Jetty provides a more straightforward setup for traditional web applications and servlets.

Pros of Undertow

• Lightweight and highly performant, with lower memory footprint
• Designed for both blocking and non-blocking IO, offering greater flexibility
• Simpler API and easier to embed in applications

Cons of Undertow

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Jetty
• Less comprehensive documentation and fewer examples available
• Limited built-in features, requiring additional libraries for some functionalities

Code Comparison

Undertow server setup:

Undertow server = Undertow.builder()
    .addHttpListener(8080, "localhost")
    .setHandler(new HttpHandler() {
        @Override
        public void handleRequest(HttpServerExchange exchange) throws Exception {
            exchange.getResponseSender().send("Hello World");
        }
    }).build();
server.start();

Jetty server setup:

Server server = new Server(8080);
server.setHandler(new AbstractHandler() {
    @Override
    public void handle(String target, Request baseRequest, HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws IOException, ServletException {
        response.getWriter().println("Hello World");
        baseRequest.setHandled(true);
    }
});
server.start();

Both examples demonstrate a simple HTTP server setup, but Undertow's API is more concise and uses a builder pattern, while Jetty follows a more traditional approach with explicit server and handler configuration.

Pros of Tomcat

• More extensive documentation and larger community support
• Broader range of features and configurations out-of-the-box
• Better integration with other Apache projects

Cons of Tomcat

• Heavier resource footprint, potentially slower startup times
• More complex configuration and deployment process
• Less suitable for embedded applications

Code Comparison

Tomcat's web.xml configuration:

<web-app>
  <servlet>
    <servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
    <servlet-class>com.example.MyServlet</servlet-class>
  </servlet>
  <servlet-mapping>
    <servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
    <url-pattern>/myservlet</url-pattern>
  </servlet-mapping>
</web-app>

Jetty's web.xml configuration:

<web-app>
  <servlet>
    <servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
    <servlet-class>com.example.MyServlet</servlet-class>
  </servlet>
  <servlet-mapping>
    <servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
    <url-pattern>/myservlet</url-pattern>
  </servlet-mapping>
</web-app>

Both Tomcat and Jetty use similar web.xml configurations, but Jetty tends to have more programmatic configuration options, making it more flexible for embedded use cases.

Pros of Vert.x

• Reactive and event-driven architecture, offering better scalability for high-concurrency scenarios
• Polyglot support, allowing developers to write applications in multiple programming languages
• Built-in clustering and distributed event bus for easier microservices development

Cons of Vert.x

• Steeper learning curve due to its reactive programming model
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Jetty
• Less mature and battle-tested in production environments

Code Comparison

Jetty (Servlet-based):

public class HelloServlet extends HttpServlet {
    protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException {
        response.getWriter().println("Hello, World!");
    }
}

Vert.x:

public class HelloVerticle extends AbstractVerticle {
    @Override
    public void start() {
        vertx.createHttpServer().requestHandler(req -> {
            req.response().end("Hello, World!");
        }).listen(8080);
    }
}

The code comparison shows the difference in approach between Jetty's traditional servlet-based model and Vert.x's event-driven, non-blocking model. Vert.x's code is more concise and focuses on handling events, while Jetty follows the standard servlet lifecycle.