Atmosphere vs Play: What are the differences?
Developers describe Atmosphere as "Realtime Client Server Framework for the JVM, supporting WebSockets and Cross-Browser Fallbacks Support". The Atmosphere Framework contains client and server side components for building Asynchronous Web Applications. The majority of popular frameworks are either supporting Atmosphere or supported natively by the framework. The Atmosphere Framework supports all major Browsers and Servers. On the other hand, Play is detailed as "The High Velocity Web Framework For Java and Scala". Play Framework makes it easy to build web applications with Java & Scala. Play is based on a lightweight, stateless, web-friendly architecture. Built on Akka, Play provides predictable and minimal resource consumption (CPU, memory, threads) for highly-scalable applications.
Atmosphere and Play can be categorized as "Frameworks (Full Stack)" tools.
"Cross-Browse" is the primary reason why developers consider Atmosphere over the competitors, whereas "Scala" was stated as the key factor in picking Play.
Atmosphere and Play are both open source tools. Play with 11.2K GitHub stars and 3.75K forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than Atmosphere with 3.33K GitHub stars and 722 GitHub forks.
What is Atmosphere?
What is Play?
Want advice about which of these to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What are the cons of using Atmosphere?
What tools integrate with Play?
Play is a central framework/component/library (not sure what to call things these days) in Scala. We <3 Scala, and therefore we <3 Play.
Play is on of several frameworks we are prototyping and vetting for various public-facing websites, and may ultimately be the framework behind the main datapile.io website.
I used Play to build a configuration UI for the service, which let you create and manage the menus (a hierarchical tree of options and actions).