边玩边体验！框架大应用程序可维护性
玩！框架确实可以让您快速启动和运行，但我想知道一旦应用程序的大小和复杂性开始增长，维护应用程序会变得多么困难......
任何人都知道生产中的一些中型到大型游戏应用程序，以及有多困难或容易是为了支持、维护和改进吗？
Play! framework really lets you get up and running quickly, but I wonder how hard it gets to maintain applications once they start to grow in size and complexity...
anyone knows of some middle to big size play application on production, and how hard or easy has it been to support, maintain and improve it?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
RoR 和 Grails 中的“轨道”以及任何其他编码框架约定，意味着它们会限制您的选择，以便您更快地实现目标。在本例中，目标是基于 CRUD 的 Web 应用程序。
如果您未来的更改保持在框架规定的约束范围内，那么您就不会有任何问题。如果你决定要从中分支出来，你就会遇到问题。
您对这个问题的回答将取决于这一事实。不会有一种单一的、令人欣慰的、一刀切的应对措施可以消除您决策中的所有风险。
The "rail" in RoR and Grails, and anything other convention over coding framework, means that they constrain your choices for the sake of getting you to the goal more quickly. In this case, the goal is a CRUD web-based application.
If your future changes remain within the constraints laid down by the framework you won't have any problem. If you decide that you want to branch out from that you'll have a problem.
The answers you get to this question will depend on that fact. There won't be a single, comforting, one size fits all response that will remove all risk from your decision.
从 Play Google 群组重新发布，以防有人感兴趣：
只是一个评论，不是一个严肃的答案：
当我试图说服人们使用新技术时，这通常是我喜欢问的那种有偏见的问题:)
几乎不可能通过严肃的论据而不是非常主观地回答这个问题...此外，这实际上取决于主题、企业背景、人员的技能等...
最后，根据我的经验，当项目失败或难以维护时，技术本身几乎从来都不是主要问题：通常是开发人员/架构师使用该技术的方式以及项目的设计和记录方式。您可以在最糟糕的技术中找到设计精良的项目。
然而，如果使用的框架很复杂，并且需要太长的学习曲线和专业技能，那么复杂性就会成倍增加，而不仅仅是增加一点。
Re-post from play google group in case it interests anyone:
Just a remark, not a serious answer:
This is typically the kind of biased questions I love when trying to convince people of using a new technology :)
Almost impossible to answer this with serious arguments and without being very subjective... Moreover, it really depends on the subject, the enterprise context, the skills of the people etc...
Finally, from my experience, the technology itself is almost never the main problem when a project fails or is difficult to maintain: it's generally the way this technology has been used by developers/architects and how the project has been designed and documented. You can find very well designed projects in the worst technology.
Nevertheless, if the frameworks used are complicated and require too long learning curves and expert skills, it can multiply the complexity and not just increase it a bit.