Talk:Jakarta Server Pages

This article way too detailed, or not detailed enough
If the Idea of this article is to give a good general impression on what JSP does for non-java people it is way too detailed. If the idea of this article is to give a detailed description on JSP technology, or maybe a starting guide for programmers, it's not detailed enough.

This article looks like a poorly written programer's guide, not an encyclopedia article! If anyone else agrees, I might be willing to chip in, and help do a complete rewrite.

Make sense?
"it is helpful to understand how the JSP compiler transforms the page into a Java servlet. For an example, see the following input, and its resulting generated Java servlet."'' in the introduction isn't followed by any "following" input. Am I being daft? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The examples are on separate pages. The word input links to JavaServer page example input and servlet links to JavaServer page example output. I think the text should be changed to make it more obvious what those links point to. – Doug B...........ell talk&bull;contrib 16:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, thank you! How strange, I've never seen separately linked examples like that in an article before. Its certainly confusing, and I would agree the text should be changed to make things more obvious... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the following discussion was previously listed here, and for some reason the discussion page blanked. I for one would have found it useful, and would support moving the examples to this article. Separate articles is not really inkeeping with the style of other articles... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The example input and output pages referenced by the this page are marked for cleanup. Should they be moved into a new "compiling" section of this page?  --lenehey


 * Yeah, they should be moved to this article. --Jonik 17:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support a merge with this article. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have merged JavaServer_page_example_input and JavaServer_page_example_output into this article, see the new Example section. RossPatterson 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The compiled code in "Resulting servlet" for the example included a call to a non-existent method "toStringOrBlank(...)". Since toStringOrBlank(...) is not a part of any standard Java/Servlet/JSP library, this method call would not be auto-generated by a JSP compiler. To make the example correct, I have added an implementation of toStringOrBlank(...) as an example of declaring a method within a <%! ... %> declaration block in the "Scripting elements" section. I've also added the call to toStringOrBlank(...) in the "Input JSP" section, and removed the comment about what toStringOrBlank(...) is supposed to do from the "Resulting servlet" section. Robert McGuire 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger with "Model 2"
I don't think that a merger is appropriate. "Model 2" describes a design philosophy for WebApps. It is not necessarily linked to a certain view technology (JSP). You can (in theory) create a model 2 application while using another technology like Velocity as well (there are many very good MVC / Model 2 frameworks, so I wouldn't call this approach pratical). AnimalFriend 09:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I.

First paragraph
The first paragraph is a poor introduction (not poorly written - may be in the wrong place) and references "static content".

A good intro should discuss the main attractions at a higher level. One of the main attraction of JSPs is the ability to dynamically generate content. Another attraction is the ability to mix standard java code and HTML including java scripts. Another attraction is JSPs are fast because the JSP container compiles JSPs into servlets keeps the resulting servlet in a fully compiled state.

Hope this helps HH

Comparison?
Perhaps a comparison of ASP vs. JSP vs. PHP? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.101.158.1 (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Criticism
Didn't this page used to have a criticisms section, whereas it cited problems with Java twisted to a web development platform

Tolland (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC) The following quote reads like the opinion of the author:

> Today there are several alternatives and a number of JSP-oriented pages in larger web apps are considered to be technical debt.

It's probably true. But if it's the opinion of someone notable, it should be referenced. Is it the opinion of the JCP, oracle, James Gosling or just some developer who has experience one too many null pointer errors??

Criticism and Comparison Sections Needed
I agree that this page could use a comparison section as well as a criticism section. As a Java web developer I am all too aware of the failings of developing directly using Java/JSP/JSTL/Servlets without additional technologies to ease the pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.43.121 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

jsp:plugin section
The section about jsp:plugin seems to violate NPOV. There is alot of "hopefully" and 'X is poorly done.' Someone should revise this.


 * I did some work on that, but it could maybe use another look. AdjectiveAnimal 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good introduction to technology
The article looks like a good introduction to JSP technology for people already familiar with Java Servlet technology. I like code examples and short programmer's reference in Wikipedia. Both of nontechnical users and developers should be satisfied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi2 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Developer not satisfied
This article is really not what I would expect at all. It has no history, or pedigree for the JSP (where does it fit in with PHP, ASP, etc?), at all, and basically acts a beginners guide. For people wanting to know the why, what and where of JSP this article doesn't really seem to answer it. Jimadilo (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have refactored the article to transform it to an encyclopedic article and I have moved the tutorial information there. Ftiercel (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Errors
 — M3TA  (  info  ) @  09:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "This system of split inline coding sections is called step over scripting because it can wrap around the static markup by stepping over it." - I have never heard of this term, and the only place google can find it is in copies of this article.
 * 2) I don't like the whole description of 'runtime' compilation. That's exactly the opposite of what happens. JSPs are compiled into Servlets which are executed at runtime, possibly including output from other compiled JSPs. That's why you can pre-compile all your JSPs.
 * 3) I have a problem with the term JSP pages and I think it should be JSPs as a replacement.
 * 4) The JSP and compiled Java code in the example do not help or make anything clear, I think they should go, and be replaced with some simple examples of JSP syntax only, maybe with a description of the output. The Java generated is unimportant.

Work in progress
I'll be editing this article to have a better organizational structure, and I'll be removing some unnecessary/technical text as well as adding some information for people who are unfamiliar with Java servlets (and might be more familiar with PHP.) I'd like to add a criticism section, as well as a section with basic comparisons to PHP or ASP.NET for people who might be familiar with those technologies. If you have sources I could use for the criticism section, that would be helpful. --Libertyernie2 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Add encyclopedic content on this page and tutorial content on this one. Ftiercel (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You've done a great job with this rewrite. The outline is logical, the examples are concise and are good representations of what JSP actually looks like. The comparison section is especially good. The compiler section could probably use a couple of sources, and you may want to think about adding in an example using JSTL.The only other criticisms I would have are some minor edit things; minor grammar fixes etc. Nice work. Ben.d.zimmer (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading caching section
The caching section in this article is roughly more about general web application scalability than it is about JSP caching. I'm not sure if it's still relevant, but O'Reilly has a page on it. And even if this were talking about a general Java web application, the content in this section is also refutable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.212.83 (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup. The "bottleneck" described has nothing to do with JSP or servlets, you got that with PHP or whatever else, too. I like the caching section, but it needs to be described more generally. The database is always the bottleneck, unless you're using a very fast "noSQL" database and a slow Apache server. 178.197.233.41 (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've read through the section and it does seem a dubious one. There's certainly a space for improvements & citations there.Vaxquis (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this section should simply be removed as it is. There is no content relevant to the subject of JSP technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjcroftiv (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Done (be bold) Bramley (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on JavaServer Pages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120419215245/http://java.sun.com:80/products/jsp/tutorial/TagLibraries3.html to http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/tutorial/TagLibraries3.html#63159

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)