Software Alternatives & Startups

Apache CXF VS Play Framework

Compare Apache CXF VS Play Framework and see what are their differences

Apache CXF logo Apache CXF

Apache CXF, Services Framework - Index

Play Framework logo Play Framework

An open source web framework which follows the model-view-controller architecture. It is light-weight, web-friendly, and stateless. It provides minimal overhead for highly-scalable applications.
  • Apache CXF Landing page
    Landing page //
    2019-12-29
  • Play Framework Landing page
    Landing page //
    2022-06-23

Apache CXF features and specs

  • Comprehensive Web Service Support
    Apache CXF supports a wide range of web service standards including SOAP, REST, and various WS-* standards, allowing developers to work with different service types under one framework.
  • Flexibility
    CXF is highly configurable and can be customized to meet various needs ranging from simple web APIs to complex enterprise integrations, supporting both XML and JSON formats.
  • Integration
    It integrates well with other Java enterprise standards and frameworks such as Spring and JAX-RS, offering seamless integration into existing systems.
  • Active Community and Documentation
    Being an Apache project, CXF benefits from a large, active community which contributes to extensive documentation, forums, and community support.
  • Performance
    Apache CXF is designed to be lightweight and efficient, which can lead to better performance in web service communication compared to some heavier alternatives.

Possible disadvantages of Apache CXF

  • Complexity for Beginners
    The extensive features and flexibility of Apache CXF can make it complex for beginners to get started, requiring a good understanding of web service concepts and configurations.
  • Steep Learning Curve
    Due to its wide range of capabilities and configurability, mastering Apache CXF may involve a steep learning curve for developers, especially those new to web services or enterprise integration.
  • Documentation Gaps
    While there is extensive documentation, it can sometimes be outdated or lacking in detailed examples for complex configurations and newer features, which can be challenging for developers needing specific information.
  • Overhead for Simple Use-Cases
    For very simple REST or SOAP web services, Apache CXF may introduce more complexity and overhead than necessary compared to more lightweight alternatives or simpler frameworks.

Play Framework features and specs

  • Scalability
    The Play Framework is built with scalability in mind, making it easier to develop applications that can handle a large number of simultaneous users and requests.
  • Reactive Programming
    Play is based on a reactive programming model, which allows it to handle asynchronous tasks efficiently. This results in better performance and resource utilization.
  • Hot Reloading
    Play supports hot reloading, enabling developers to see changes in real-time without needing to restart the server. This feature boosts productivity by speeding up the development cycle.
  • Java and Scala Support
    The framework supports both Java and Scala, accommodating a wide range of developers and allowing teams to choose their preferred language.
  • Built-in Testing
    Play has built-in support for writing unit and functional tests, offering a comprehensive test framework to ensure code quality and reliability.
  • RESTful by Default
    Play makes it straightforward to build RESTful web services, simplifying the construction of APIs and ensuring that they adhere to REST principles.
  • Extensive Documentation
    The Play Framework boasts extensive and detailed documentation, making it easier for developers to get started and find solutions to common problems.

Possible disadvantages of Play Framework

  • Steep Learning Curve
    New developers might find Play’s reactive model and functional programming concepts challenging, especially if they are primarily experienced with traditional web frameworks.
  • Memory Usage
    Play applications can be memory-intensive, which might lead to higher hosting costs compared to lighter frameworks, especially for smaller applications.
  • Complex Configuration
    Setting up and configuring a Play application can be complex and time-consuming, particularly for beginners or small teams without extensive experience.
  • Limited Community Support
    Although Play has a dedicated user base, its community is smaller compared to more popular web frameworks like Spring or Django, potentially making it difficult to find solutions and community-driven resources.
  • Verbose Code
    Play applications may require a significant amount of boilerplate code, particularly when integrating with other services or libraries, leading to potentially verbose and less maintainable codebases.

Analysis of Play Framework

Overall verdict

  • Play Framework is an excellent choice for developers looking to build scalable and modern web applications. Its asynchronous model and support for reactive programming make it suitable for high-performance applications. However, the learning curve can be steep for developers not familiar with Scala or functional programming concepts.

Why this product is good

  • Ecosystem
    Play Framework has a strong integration with Akka and other Scala-based tools, making it a great choice for applications that can leverage the broader Scala ecosystem.
  • Scalability
    Play Framework is designed to be highly scalable and can handle numerous requests. It's a reactive web framework that uses an asynchronous, non-blocking model which benefits performance, especially for high-traffic applications.
  • Modernwebfeatures
    Play supports a wide range of modern web development features, including RESTful architectures, WebSockets, and JSON handling out of the box.
  • Developerproductivity
    The framework integrates easily with popular build tools like SBT and Maven and supports hot code reloading, which can substantially speed up development cycles.

Recommended for

  • Scala developers
  • Projects requiring high concurrency
  • Applications that need to handle real-time data streaming
  • Developers looking for a full-stack framework with strong integration with the JVM ecosystem

Apache CXF videos

15-Generating Code - SOAP WSDL to Java using Apache CXF Plugin | Maven for Beginners | Code Journal

Play Framework videos

The Play Framework at LinkedIn: Productivity and Performance at Scale

Category Popularity

0-100% (relative to Apache CXF and Play Framework)
Developer Tools
28 28%
72% 72
Web Frameworks
22 22%
78% 78
Ruby Web Framework
100 100%
0% 0
Development
0 0%
100% 100

User comments

Share your experience with using Apache CXF and Play Framework. For example, how are they different and which one is better?
Log in or Post with

Reviews

These are some of the external sources and on-site user reviews we've used to compare Apache CXF and Play Framework

Apache CXF Reviews

We have no reviews of Apache CXF yet.
Be the first one to post

Play Framework Reviews

The 20 Best Laravel Alternatives for Web Development
Play Framework brings Scala and Java into harmony, offering a backstage pass to simplistic, asynchronous web development. No song and dance, just straightforward high-octane performance.
17 Popular Java Frameworks for 2023: Pros, cons, and more
The Play Framework makes it possible to build lightweight and web-friendly Java and Scala applications for desktop and mobile. Play is a hugely popular framework, used by brands such as LinkedIn, Samsung, Walmart, The Guardian, Verizon, and many others.
Source: raygun.com
10 Best Java Frameworks You Should Know
Play is written using Scala Programming Language. It offers web and mobile application development. It follows MVC architecture. Play is compiled to Java-Bytecode, and this makes Play one of the most powerful frameworks.

Social recommendations and mentions

Based on our record, Apache CXF should be more popular than Play Framework. It has been mentiond 2 times since March 2021. We are tracking product recommendations and mentions on various public social media platforms and blogs. They can help you identify which product is more popular and what people think of it.

Apache CXF mentions (2)

  • It's 2023. Your API should have a schema
    SOAP died because it is awful. There are plenty of java libraries that can generate java code from a WSDL. Apache CXF seem to be the fairly standard library people use. (https://cxf.apache.org). Source: about 3 years ago
  • What’s Coming in Jakarta REST 3.1?
    A few years back, Adam Bien wrote an excellent blog post on how to configure JSON-B in a Jakarta REST application. The only trouble is that at that time, the approach only worked with Eclipse Jersey. Since then other implementations (including Open Liberty via Apache CXF) also enabled this functionality, but it will become a standard in 3.1, enabling more portable usage of JSON-B configuration. - Source: dev.to / over 5 years ago

Play Framework mentions (1)

  • Examples of CompletableFuture-based APIs / state of async in Java?
    I can see the Play framework really leans into async, and only tolerates blocking controllers. What else is out there? Source: almost 3 years ago

What are some alternatives?

When comparing Apache CXF and Play Framework, you can also consider the following products

ASP.NET - ASP.NET is a free web framework for building great Web sites and Web applications using HTML, CSS and JavaScript.

Adonis JS - AdonisJs is a Node.js web framework with breath of fresh air and drizzle of elegant syntax on top of it

jQuery UI - Curated set of user interface interactions, effects, widgets, and themes built on top of the jQuery JavaScript Library

Django - The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines

Font Awesome - Font Awesome makes it easy to add vector icons and social logos to your website. And version 5 is redesigned and built from the ground up!

ExpressJS - Sinatra inspired web development framework for node.js -- insanely fast, flexible, and simple