Android application development has been of interest since the first Android smartphone was released. Applications are constantly getting more complex as well as smartphone hardware is getting better. New ways of developing Android applications are developed with time. There is Model View Presenter architecture that is the most used for android applications now and new View InteractorPresenter Entity Router architecture that is becoming more popular. But there is no empirical data to compare these architectures to understand what architecture will fit better for developing new applications. This thesis aims to compare the MVP and the VIPER android architectures using a few important metrics like maintainability, modifiability, testability, and performance. Results will answer what architecture is better for developing different types of projects. VIPERarchitecture showed better performance results and maintenance metrics comparison shows that both architectures have advantages and disadvantages.

The purpose of this thesis is to characterize, compare and contrast four network-centric software architectures, namely Client-Server Architecture (CSA), Distributed Objects Architecture (DOA), Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Peer-to-Peer Architecture (PPA) and seven associated frameworks consisting of .NET, Java EE, CORBA, DCOM, Web Services, Jini and JXTA with respect to a set of derived criteria. Network-centric systems are gaining in popularity as they have the potential to solve more complex problems than we have been able to in the past. However, with the rise of SOA, Web Services, a set of standards widely used for implementing service-oriented solutions, is being touted as the "silver bullet" to all problems afflicting the software engineering domain with the danger of making other architectures seem obsolete. Thus, there is an urgent need to study the various architectures and frameworks in comparison to each other and understand their relative merits and demerits for building network-centric systems. The architectures studied here were selected on the basis of their fundamentality and generality. The frameworks were chosen on the basis of their popularity and representativeness to build solutions in a particular architecture. The criteria used for comparative assessment are derived from a combination of two approaches — by a close examination of the unique characteristics and requirements of network-centric systems and then by an examination of the constraints and mechanisms present in the architectures and frameworks under consideration that may contribute towards realizing the requirements of network-centric systems. Not all of the criteria are equally relevant for the architectures and frameworks. Some, when relevant, are relevant in a different sense from one architecture (or framework) to another. One of the conclusions that can be drawn from this study is that the different architectures are not completely different from each other. In fact, CSA, DOA and SOA are a natural evolution in that order and share several characteristics. At the same time, significant differences do exist, so it is clearly possible to judge/differentiate one from the other. All three architectures can coexist in a single system or system of systems. However, the advantages of each architecture become apparent only when they are used in their proper scope. At the same time, a sharp difference can be perceived between these three architectures and the peer-to-peer architecture. This is because PPA aims to solve a totally different class of problems than the other three architectures and hence has certain unique characteristics not observed in the others. Further, all of the frameworks have certain unique architectural features and mechanisms not found in the others that contribute towards achieving network-centric quality characteristics. The two broad frameworks, .NET and Java EE offer almost equivalent capabilities and features; what can be achieved in one can be achieved in the other. This thesis deals with the study of all the four architectures and their related frameworks. The criteria used, while fairly comprehensive, are not exhaustive. Variants of the fundamental architectures are not considered. However, system/software architects seeking an understanding of the tradeoffs involved in using the various architectures and frameworks and their subtle nuances should benefit considerably from this work. / Master of Science

This diploma thesis describes how to create or convert traditional Java programs to desktop-like rich internet applications with the Google Web Toolkit. The Google Web Toolkit is an open source development environment, which translates Java code to browser and device independent HTML and JavaScript. Most of the GWT framework parts, including the Java to JavaScript compiler as well as important security issues of websites will be introduced. The famous Agricola board game will be implemented in the Model-View-Presenter pattern to show that complex user interfaces can be created with the Google Web Toolkit. The Google Web Toolkit framework will be compared with the JavaServer Faces one to find out which toolkit is the right one for the next web project.:I Abstract II Contents III Acronyms and Glossary III.I Acronyms III.II Glossary IV Credits 1 Introduction 2 Basics 2.1 Development of the World Wide Web 2.2 Hypertext Markup Language 2.3 Cascading Style Sheets 2.4 JavaScript 2.5 Hypertext Markup Language Document Object Model 2.6 Asynchronous JavaScript and XML 3 GWT toolbox and compiler 3.1 GWT in action 3.2 A short overview of the toolkit 3.3 GWT compiler and JSNI 3.3.1 Overview of GWT compiler and JSNI 3.3.2 Deferred binding and bootstrapping process 3.3.3 GWT compiler steps and optimizations 3.4 Java Runtime Environment Emulation 3.5 Widgets and Panels 3.5.1 Overview of GWT Widgets 3.5.2 Event handlers in GWT Widgets 3.5.3 Manipulating browser’s DOM with GWT DOM class 3.5.4 GWT Designer and view optimization using UiBinder 3.6 Remote Procedure Calls 3.6.1 Comparison of Remote Procedure Calls with Remote Method Invocations 3.6.2 GWT’s RPC service and serializable whitelist 3.7 History Management 3.8 Client Bundle 3.8.1 Using ImageResources in the ClientBundle interface 3.8.2 Using CssResources in the ClientBundle interface 4 Model-View-Presenter Architecture 4.1 Comparison of MVP and MVC 4.2 GWT Model-View-Presenter pattern example: Agricola board game 4.3 Extending the Agricola web application with mobile views 4.4 Introducing activities in the Agricola Model-View-Presenter pattern enabling browser history 5 Comparison of the two web frameworks: GWT and JSF 5.1 Definitions of comparison fields 5.2 Comparison in category 1: Nearly completely static sites with a little bit of dynamic content, e.g. news update 5.3 Comparison in category 2: Doing a survey in both technologies 5.4 Comparison in category 3: Creating a forum to show data 5.5 Comparison in category 4: Writing a chat application 5.6 Comparison in category 5: Writing the speed game Snake 5.7 Summary 6 Security 6.1 Download Tomcat 6.2 Dynamic Web Application Project with GWT and Tomcat 6.3 Establish HTTPS connections in Tomcat 6.3.1 Create a pem certificate 6.3.2 Convert pem certificate into a key store object 6.3.3 Configure Tomcat’s XML files to enable HTPPS 6.4 Establish a database connection in Tomcat 6.4.1 Create TomcatGWT user and schema, and add the table countries 6.4.2 Configure Tomcat’s XML files to get access to the database connection 6.4.3 PreparedStatements avoid MySQL injections 6.5 Login mechanism in Tomcat 6.6 SafeHtml 7 Presenting a complex software application written in GWT 8 Conclusions 8.1 Summary 8.2 Future work A Appendix A 1 Configure the Google Web Toolkit framework in Eclipse A 1.1 Install the Java Developer Kit A 1.2 Download Eclipse A 1.3 Install the GWT plugin in Eclipse A 1.4 Create first GWT Java Project A 2 Figures A 3 Listings A 3.1 Source code of the Agricola board game A 3.2 Source code of GWT and JSF comparison A 4 Tables R Lists and References R 1 Lists R 1.1 List of Tables R 1.2 List of Figures R 1.3 List of Listings R 2 References R 2.1 Books R 2.2 Online resources / Diese Diplomarbeit beschreibt die Erzeugung desktopähnlicher Anwendungen mit dem Google Web Toolkit und die Umwandlung klassischer Java-Programme in diese. Das Google Web Toolkit ist eine Open-Source-Entwicklungsumgebung, die Java-Code in browserunabhängiges als auch in geräteübergreifendes HTML und JavaScript übersetzt. Vorgestellt wird der Großteil des GWT Frameworks inklusive des Java zu JavaScript-Compilers sowie wichtige Sicherheitsaspekte von Internetseiten. Um zu zeigen, dass auch komplizierte graphische Oberflächen mit dem Google Web Toolkit erzeugt werden können, wird das bekannte Brettspiel Agricola mittels Model-View-Presenter Designmuster implementiert. Zur Ermittlung der richtigen Technologie für das nächste Webprojekt findet ein Vergleich zwischen dem Google Web Toolkit und JavaServer Faces statt.:I Abstract II Contents III Acronyms and Glossary III.I Acronyms III.II Glossary IV Credits 1 Introduction 2 Basics 2.1 Development of the World Wide Web 2.2 Hypertext Markup Language 2.3 Cascading Style Sheets 2.4 JavaScript 2.5 Hypertext Markup Language Document Object Model 2.6 Asynchronous JavaScript and XML 3 GWT toolbox and compiler 3.1 GWT in action 3.2 A short overview of the toolkit 3.3 GWT compiler and JSNI 3.3.1 Overview of GWT compiler and JSNI 3.3.2 Deferred binding and bootstrapping process 3.3.3 GWT compiler steps and optimizations 3.4 Java Runtime Environment Emulation 3.5 Widgets and Panels 3.5.1 Overview of GWT Widgets 3.5.2 Event handlers in GWT Widgets 3.5.3 Manipulating browser’s DOM with GWT DOM class 3.5.4 GWT Designer and view optimization using UiBinder 3.6 Remote Procedure Calls 3.6.1 Comparison of Remote Procedure Calls with Remote Method Invocations 3.6.2 GWT’s RPC service and serializable whitelist 3.7 History Management 3.8 Client Bundle 3.8.1 Using ImageResources in the ClientBundle interface 3.8.2 Using CssResources in the ClientBundle interface 4 Model-View-Presenter Architecture 4.1 Comparison of MVP and MVC 4.2 GWT Model-View-Presenter pattern example: Agricola board game 4.3 Extending the Agricola web application with mobile views 4.4 Introducing activities in the Agricola Model-View-Presenter pattern enabling browser history 5 Comparison of the two web frameworks: GWT and JSF 5.1 Definitions of comparison fields 5.2 Comparison in category 1: Nearly completely static sites with a little bit of dynamic content, e.g. news update 5.3 Comparison in category 2: Doing a survey in both technologies 5.4 Comparison in category 3: Creating a forum to show data 5.5 Comparison in category 4: Writing a chat application 5.6 Comparison in category 5: Writing the speed game Snake 5.7 Summary 6 Security 6.1 Download Tomcat 6.2 Dynamic Web Application Project with GWT and Tomcat 6.3 Establish HTTPS connections in Tomcat 6.3.1 Create a pem certificate 6.3.2 Convert pem certificate into a key store object 6.3.3 Configure Tomcat’s XML files to enable HTPPS 6.4 Establish a database connection in Tomcat 6.4.1 Create TomcatGWT user and schema, and add the table countries 6.4.2 Configure Tomcat’s XML files to get access to the database connection 6.4.3 PreparedStatements avoid MySQL injections 6.5 Login mechanism in Tomcat 6.6 SafeHtml 7 Presenting a complex software application written in GWT 8 Conclusions 8.1 Summary 8.2 Future work A Appendix A 1 Configure the Google Web Toolkit framework in Eclipse A 1.1 Install the Java Developer Kit A 1.2 Download Eclipse A 1.3 Install the GWT plugin in Eclipse A 1.4 Create first GWT Java Project A 2 Figures A 3 Listings A 3.1 Source code of the Agricola board game A 3.2 Source code of GWT and JSF comparison A 4 Tables R Lists and References R 1 Lists R 1.1 List of Tables R 1.2 List of Figures R 1.3 List of Listings R 2 References R 2.1 Books R 2.2 Online resources