Risk evaluation for framework selection

I'm planning on starting a new project, and am evaluating various web frameworks. There is one that I'm seriously considering, but I worry about its lasting power.

When choosing a web framework, what should I look for when deciding what to go with?

Here's what I have noticed with the framework I'm looking at:

• Small community. There are only a few messages on the users list each day
• No news on the "news" page since the previous release, over 6 months ago
• No svn commits in the last 30 days
• Good documentation, but wiki not updated since previous release
• Most recent release still not in a maven repository

It is not the officially sanctioned Java EE framework, but I've seen several people mention it as a good solution in answers to various questions on Stack Overflow.

I'm not going to say which framework I'm looking at, because I don't want this to get into a framework war. I want to know what other aspects of the project I should look at in my evaluation of risk. This should apply to other areas besides just Java EE web, like ORM, etc.

I'll say that so-called "dead" projects are not that great a danger as long as the project itself is solid and you like it. The thing is that if the library or framework already does everything you can think you want, then it's not such a big deal. If you get a stable project up and running then you should be done thinking about the framework (done!) and focus only on your webapp. You shouldn't be required to update the framework itself with the latest release every month.

Personally, I think the most important point is that you find one that is intuitive to your project. What makes the most sense? MVC? Should each element in the URL be a separate object? How would interactivity (AJAX) work? It makes no sense to pick something just because it's an "industry standard" or because it's used by a lot of big-name sites. Maybe they chose it for needs entirely different from yours. Read the tutorials for each framework and be critical. If it doesn't gel with your way of thinking, or you have seen it done more elegantly, then move on. What you are considering here is the design and good design is tantamount for staying flexible and scalable. There's hundreds of web frameworks out there, old and new, in every language. You're bound to find half a dozen that works just the way you want to think in your project.

Points I consider mandatory:

• Extensible through plug-ins: check if there's already plug-ins for various middleware tasks such as memcache, gzip, OpenID, AJAX goodness, etc.
• Simplicity and modularity: the more complex, the steeper the learning curve and the less you can trust its stability; the more "locked" to specific technologies, the higher the chances that you'll end up with a chain around your ankle.
  • Database agnostic: can you use sqlite3 for development and then switch to your production DB by changing a single line of code or configuration?
  • Platform agnostic: can you run it on Apache, lighttpd, etc.? Could you port it to run in a cloud?
  • Template agnostic: can you switch out the template system? Let's say you hire dedicated designers and they really want to go with something else.
• Documentation: I am not that strict if it's open-source, but there would need to be enough official documentation to enable me to fully understand how to write my own plug-ins, for example. Also look to see if there's source code of working sites using the same framework.
• License and source code: do you have access to the source code and are you allowed to modify it? Consider if you can use it commercially! (Even if you have no current plans to do that currently.)

All in all: flexibility. If I am satisfied with all four points, I'm pretty much done. Notice how I didn't have anything about "deadness" in there? If the core design is good and there's easily installable plug-ins for doing every web-dev 3.0-beta buzzword thing you want to do, then I don't care if the last SVN commit was in 2006.