The State of Server Side Java Webapps
summary
Argues that many apps don’t need heavy client frameworks and gives concrete evidence: popular sites often ship 2–5 MB of JavaScript causing FCP ~2–3s and LCP up to ~10s; shows three server-rendered demos (a voting app, a DEMAR dashboard with 526 reports and 3 failures, and a car‑trip logger) built with Java stacks. Compares action-based (Jakarta MVC, Spring MVC, Quarkus) and component-based (Jakarta Faces, PrimeFaces, Wicket) approaches, points out built‑in CSRF form protection and recommends hybrid tweaks like HTMX or Alpine for small interactivity.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (14)
- 0:00Introduction and welcome
- 1:56Poll results on web frameworks
- 2:42Speaker introduction
- 3:03Issues with single page apps
- 8:44Accessibility and SEO challenges
- 12:45Security concerns in SPAs
- 15:40Benefits of server-side rendering
- 21:47Action-based vs component-based architectures
- 25:00Code examples: Jakarta MVC
- 31:58Code examples: Jakarta Faces
- 36:59Objections to server-side rendering
- 39:06Balancing SPA and SSR approaches
- 41:54Key takeaways and recommendations
- 43:40Q&A session
related talks
49mThree Different Methods to Build Web UIs in Java
44mFull-stack web apps, 100% Java
52mYou may not need JavaScript
40mModernizing Java UIs Without JavaScript: Escape the Multi-Stack Trap
45mThe Final Frontier of Web Development: React Server Comp. vs Jakarta EE
28mServer-Side Apps, Not Server-Side Rendering: A Real Alternative to React
50mYou may not need JavaScript
41mThe Future is Now: Web Apps Productivity without Frameworks#slideless.