
In the past, one of the nice things about web application development versus desktop development has been the proliferation of application development frameworks. Where desktop development pretty much gave you a set of GUI components and a few concepts like event driven programming and MVC, web frameworks, in particular the more recent ones such as Rails and Grails, gave you an application architecture into which you could implement your domain specific logic.
Lots of benefits accrued from this predefined structure, not the least of which was the ability to quickly understand the application based on a shared understanding of how applications using this framework were put together. In my experience of looking at desktop and web applications over the years, the web applications were better and more consistently designed than their desktop counterparts. Similar tries at desktop frameworks just never seemed to gain any traction (recall Scope, an app framework based on the HMVC pattern that died of neglect).
Now along comes Griffon, a desktop application framework modeled on (and sharing an architecture) with Grails. Griffon has a very similar controller, view and model breakdown as Grails, and support for plugins. I’d like to see similar frameworks for .NET and Cocoa (yes, yes, Cocoa has some of it’s own framework goodness, but could use some higher level application abstractions to make application development more consistent).
Finally, even Griffon applications, while a vast improvement over bare GUI development, still wrestles with complex, hierarchical interfaces. That’s where integrating something like PureMVC with it’s message bus can lead to even greater elegance and productivity.
I’m in the process of developing a PureMVC plugin for Griffon. Stay tuned.

What will be the minimal jar size of the client for griffon? And could it be loaded via webstart?
[...] Time to answer some questions about Griffon: [...]