Re: Uses for D2JC (was: Gianduia and WO)
Re: Uses for D2JC (was: Gianduia and WO)
- Subject: Re: Uses for D2JC (was: Gianduia and WO)
- From: David Avendasora <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:10:53 -0500
On Nov 9, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
I still go back to "why d2jc" -- why not just do d2w? you have the
point, i suppose, about the assistant -- if that's a requirement for
you, then you're probably a sad panda with d2w (why doesn't this
work, again?that's gotta be relatively easily fixable, though
everyone i've ever heard says it produces horrid rules). Other than
the assistant, the swing approach just seems more complicated in
every respect. If you're truly not styling the app at ALL, then I
guess you don't care about the cost difference, but as far as "why
not get a swing person," the answer is because a swing person is
going to cost 50% more and the development cost to make custom swing
controls is dramatically higher than tweaking CSS and HTML. I'll
grant you that admin apps typically don't have the polish of end-
user apps, and that you might not want to bother much, but I still
am not feeling why you'd ever do a d2j client over a d2w client. I
guess we'll leave it at "'cause you want to" and move along :)
I suppose next you're going to say that WOBuilder isn't really needed
because the Component Editor in eclipse is just as good, and you get
better HTML and WOD files.
Oh wait...
Nevermind. :-D
Dave
ms
On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:48 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
I think we are talking about two different uses of D2JC. I'm not
really suggesting that it should be used to create an end-user UI
in most cases. I'm saying that it is a powerful tool to aid in the
development process.
On Nov 6, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Sure, I agree yours is real and mine's a picture, but that wasn't
really my point. My point was about visual mismatch with the
native platform. If you're OK with the app looking .... like
Java ... , by all means, ship it. I find Java desktop apps to be
mostly visually repugnant (the same reason that I work on
Maclipse, but at least SWT has a fighting chance), and I don't
believe you can actually make it un-gross without a huge amount of
work. It's a question of what matters to you, though.
I guess my point is that when D2JC is used as a development tool, I
wouldn't put _any_ work into making it look better. Neither would I
for an CRUD-focused admin app. Sure, a perfectly native UI would be
even better, but the amount of work it would take to make either a
Cocoa or a Web UI to simply aid in development or do CRUD work is
more than I think it's worth in these situations.
That said, pretty much everything in the main chunk of your email
isn't really D2JC, it's just D2*. I'm sold already on the RAD
value of D2* technologies, I'm just not at all convinced that D2JC
is the right D2 to choose in most cases. If time-to-market is the
primary concern, it seems to me that you have dramatically faster
styling and design capabilities with D2W.
I don't style D2JC at all. I use what comes out of the box. How can
D2W (or anything) be faster than that? Sure you can use D2W out-of-
the-box too, but if you think D2JC looks terrible, then the default
look of D2W must make your head explode. I don't use D2JC to design
the end-user UI. I'm using it to help design the Model and the
business logic and populate the DB through EOF instead of SQL. I
can get immediate feedback and see the impacts of these changes
without having to write any UI code at all.
You can hire an designer off the street to do CSS/HTML work for
you, whereas you'd dump a pile of hours into custom Swing controls.
Couldn't you hire a Swing guy to do swing controls just like you
hire a CSS/HTML guy? In addition to that, what about the time to
write rules by hand? With D2W there is no functional Assistant.
Now, maybe some people find the rule system easy to understand and
intuitive and find writing rules by hand easy, but I certainly
don't and I've been doing D2JC for years. For me the Assistant is
fundamental to the Model and Business-Logic validating process I'm
talking about. Besides, how is hiring someone else to do the work a
reduction in over-all work?
This is essentially the same argument I have against the IB/Cocoa
style of development. The RAD time in IB/Cocoa is just way longer
than making the equivalent UI web-based. Maybe one screen you can
layout a little quicker, but start doing multiscreen workflows,
and you're just sinking time into Cocoa work (you can really see
this when you try to RAD an iphone app -- i find it to be very
expensive to do in contrast to web RADing). The flip-side, of
course, is that it looks awesome. It's the trade-off again.
So I guess the question is really "given a project spec, what
feature in the project would cause on to choose D2JC over D2W."
I guess I'm not talking about a shipping a D2JC application, and
certainly not an app with multi-screen workflows. While I think in
some situations you _could_ ship a D2JC app to end users for simple
CRUD-type work, I agree with you that if you want/need any control
over the UI or multi-window workflows, then D2JC is not a good tool
for that.
What I am really talking about here, using D2JC for prototyping and
model-to-business context validation, is the equivalent of using
Entity Modeler for creating/modifying EOModels instead of using
Property List Editor. For the initial prototyping process,
validating that the model matches the business context, initial
CRUD work, etc. With D2JC you get a very attractive and usable
interface with zero work, where D2W takes much more effort to use
it in this way.
I also use D2JC extensively in reverse-engineering existing DBs
into EOF. I can create a fully functional UI instantly from a
reverse-engineered model that is hugely useful in allowing me to
see the DB from EOF's perspective and figure out how to setup
relationships and integrations. I've done this for portions of both
Microsoft Dynamics and Jive for integration with WebObjects
applications.
Dave
ms
On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:48 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
On Nov 6, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
couple mins of Interface Builder mockup (mac-up?):
<PastedGraphic-2.png><PastedGraphic-3.png>
Nice looking and it shows how powerful Interface Builder can be
in making UIs, but mine isn't just a mock-up it's a fully
functional application - warts and all. It really talks to the
server, sync ECs, validates, etc. etc. Again, I dropped an
EOModel into my template project and launched it. Then used the
EOAssistant to configure which attributes showed, what type of
widget they used (PopUp, text field, explorer, etc) and where
they appeared on the screen. That's it. No code. There's not a
single Java Class besides Application, DirectAction, Session and
two components: Main and JavaClient, none of which are modified
beyond the stock template.
So D2JC is certainly _passable_, but it's far from being a
proper mac app (those default old style boxes are the dead
giveaway for java apps, though there's a Swing client property
to switch box styles, IIRC). Now, certainly, if you spent enough
time, you could tweak things and make it a lot closer, but it's
always going to be off.
Yes, and so will any web app, only more so. Now, your point about
the uncanny valley is very true. D2JC comes almost too close to
the look of a native app. If it were further off like a web app
people's expectations would be lowered and no one would complain.
But being uncanny hardly seems a valid reason to throw away
something that saves literally _hundreds_ of hours of development
time, especially for internal, CRUD-type admin applications.
But I don't think that using D2JC to create shipping CRUD-type
applications is really its most appropriate or useful
application. To me, it's all about lowering project risk by
getting stake-holders involved as soon as possible in the
development process and as a prototyping and model-validating tool.
D2JC is an incredibly powerful tool when used as a means to an
end. WIth D2JC you can have a _fully functional_ application with
just an EOModel. This allows you, as a developer, to get a true
feel for how well your model represents the business context
without having to write any code. You can immediately start
creating records in the database, setting relationships, deleting
objects, orphaning them, etc. through EOF which will verify that
the relationships are properly setup including that your deletion
rules and ownership settings work as you expect. Again, you can
do all this without writing any code! You don't have to ever show
it to an end-user if you don't want to.
Change your model? No problem. Rebuild (copy the revised EOModel
to the build directory) and relaunch your app and your changes
are immediately reflected in the UI. Since you haven't written
any code, you don't have to refactor! What's better than
Eclipse's refactoring tools? Not needing to refactor at all. D2JC
greatly speeds the process of modeling and validating that the
model reflects reality.
On top of all this, since you have a fully functional
application, with all CRUD functions, revert functionality,
validation, etc, it _can_ transition into the initial data-entry,
data-cleanup application to populate/scrub the database and even
be used by non-developers (business users). How many times have
you created spreadsheets for users to do data entry into so you
can then import them into the DB? With D2JC what you give them
can be a real application that writes directly to the DB.
Keep in mind that you can do all of this - requirements to
working prototype - in ONE DAY with no code. It is easy to start
with some basic requirements, create a model, then an app, and
take it to the stake-holders to show how various pieces fit
together and get even better feedback on workflows because you
are giving them something they can see and understand not an
abstract diagram. You can then make revisions and return with a
revised, working application _minutes_ later. Yes, I said minutes!
Once you've validated that the Model accurately reflects reality
by having actually putting it to use, you can now start the labor-
intensive process of creating the finely tuned UI that looks and
works exactly how you want it to. Because you have already done a
substantial amount of model and business context validation there
will be far less risk of having to tear it all apart due to
having missed something fundamental in the model.
I'd like to see any other technology do that, WO-based or not.
And we're just talking chrome, not behavior of the app, which is
often even more off.
D2JC certainly has some UI clumsiness to it, especially when
working with many-to-many relationships and dealing with
Inheritance.
Of course you have to do all these tweaks for each platform, too
-- though you're a fair bit closer than my CocoaClient app is
running on Windows :)
I think what it comes down to is that I would not suggest using
D2JC in a situation where you have to have complete control over
the UI or have even reasonably complicated work-flows. On top of
that, I don't think it would be worth the effort to tweak the UI
for one platform, let alone multiple ones. The fact that it runs
"passibly" on all Java platforms without writing any UI code at
all, to me is simply amazing and incredibly powerful.
Whew, that's more than I intended to write. :-)
Dave
ms
On Nov 6, 2009, at 8:50 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
On Nov 6, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
So if we're stirring the pot here ... For me, it's not being
cool in the browser, it's about Java apps looking terrible.
You can immediately tell when you're using a Java app ...
Things are just never quite right, but they try to sell
themselves as being native. It's an uncanny valley situation.
Eclipse/SWT are using native controls for lots of things and
they get it wrong, too. Swing just doesn't have a chance. Go
try IDEA -- it looks TERRIBLE. Look at their preference
panels. I tweeted when IDEA went free that I can see how to
make Eclipse right, but I'd never be able to make IDEA right.
I understand the uncanny valley. In most cases you are
absolutely right. Here's a screen grab from my current D2JC
project, I think it looks pretty good, although it doesn't look
like a modern OS X app (iTunes, etc):
<PastedGraphic-3.png>
For browser apps, it's obvious they're not native apps, and
the bar is set low in the browser at this point, so you can
make a slick looking app, and it doesn't have to be perfectly
native, and people are still OK with it. I would be far more
interested in CocoaClient where you actually have a chance of
pulling off a nice end-user deliverable.
I agree. For me a WO Cocoa Client is the Holy Grail of Client-
Server. I want it. Badly.
That said, I recognize that there are plenty of apps where
"looking slick" doesn't really matter -- that you just need to
get some business app out there. But what does Java bring to
the table that you're not getting in the browser?
With plain WebObjects JavaClient, you get
1) Real Java on the client. No messing around learning
JavaScript (or waiting for the "next great JS framework") to
implement UI logic.
2) EOF on the Client with
- automatic syncing of Client and Server EditingContexts
(works very similar to Child ECs)
- batching
- faulting
- validation
Why not just use D2W? Drag and drop is about the only thing,
and that will be in the good browsers pretty soon.
For me, it's not about the features you get in the client,
although there's some cool stuff that way too. It's the dead-
simple development side that makes it so awesome to me. With
WebObjects D2JC you don't have to write _any_ code at all. No
HTML. No CSS. No JavaScript. Not even rules! You hear that D2W
guys? The D2JC EOAssistant works great and it will write most
of the rules you need! Here's a screen capture of it (it's also
a Java Client app that communicates with WOLips to update the
user.d2wmodel file):
<PastedGraphic-6.tiff>
Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack this thread with Java Client,
but hey Anjo brought it up! :-P
Dave
I do, however, think D2JC is a _neat_ technology, in that it's
amazingly clever what it's doing under the covers, I just am
not sold on the end result.
ms
On Nov 6, 2009, at 7:41 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Hey! Did I hear "JavaClient"?! :-D
Yeah, it will be cool if someday we get the tools to do
something client-server like JavaClient.
Oh wait! We already _have_ WebObjects-based JavaClient, and
Direct-To-JavaClient and it works today and has for _years_.
Sure, it's not as "cool" as a browser-based solution, in the
same way WO isn't as "cool" as Ruby.
**ducks, runs for cover and scrambles to get the D2JC project
template updated**
Dave
On Nov 6, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Anjo Krank wrote:
Not really sure... basically you'd need something totally
new, as this would be more like JavaClient and not like a
web app. But all this is *moot* until we don't have it.
Cheers, Anjo
Am 06.11.2009 um 13:05 schrieb Mike Schrag:
Yeah .. I suspect there could be a GianduiaLook, and that
would make a lot of sesnse.
ms
I think we've seen with the SproutCore stuff that it's
not. Apart from *maybe* a JS D2W.
Cheers, Anjo
Am 06.11.2009 um 02:54 schrieb Mike Schrag:
rom my perspective, I don't know that it's worth building
a server stack on top of it as much as I think it would
be nice to leverage the development tools we already have
to make it easier to write the Javascript.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be
ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden
)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden
)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
David Avendasora
Senior Software Engineer
K12, Inc.
*****
WebObjects Documentation Wiki : http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WO/
*****
WebObjects API: http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/MacOSXServer/Reference/WO54_Reference/index.html
*****
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden
)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
David Avendasora
Senior Software Engineer
K12, Inc.
*****
WebObjects Documentation Wiki : http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WO/
*****
WebObjects API: http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/MacOSXServer/Reference/WO54_Reference/index.html
*****
David Avendasora
Senior Software Engineer
K12, Inc.
*****
WebObjects Documentation Wiki : http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WO/
*****
WebObjects API: http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/MacOSXServer/Reference/WO54_Reference/index.html
*****
David Avendasora
Senior Software Engineer
K12, Inc.
*****
WebObjects Documentation Wiki : http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WO/
*****
WebObjects API: http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/MacOSXServer/Reference/WO54_Reference/index.html
*****
David Avendasora
Senior Software Engineer
K12, Inc.
*****
WebObjects Documentation Wiki : http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WO/
*****
WebObjects API: http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/MacOSXServer/Reference/WO54_Reference/index.html
*****
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden