Re: New to webobjects
Re: New to webobjects
- Subject: Re: New to webobjects
- From: Jonathan Rochkind <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:11:31 -0500
I admit I don't use D2W myself, although I've spent time looking at it. It
looks very neat, but it looks like it would be a very neat time-saving
framework for experienced WO developers. My impression is that you'd
still need to understand the underlying WO frameworks for any non-trivial
customization, or for debugging, for that matter. So, that means it's
another thing to learn---not the easy only-thing-you-need-to-learn for
inexperienced WO developers that some Apple stuff implies. Not only is it
another thing to learn, but it's probably the poorest documented part of WO
too---although it's documentation is gradually getting a LOT better, along
with the rest of WO, it's still the poorest documented of the bunch.
That's my impression anyway. Also....
At 02:44 PM 4/9/2003 -0700, Scott Ellsworth wrote:
A major point of contention for many people I have talked with is the use
of Foundation, rather than java.util, objects. I can see why they did it,
but it causes a bit of torque to new users. (Not that I have ever seen
permanent harm resulting from learning a new framework.)
Well, the real reason that it uses the Foundation stuff instead of the JDK
stuff is just because it all started out as ObjectiveC stuff, not as Java
at all! The Foundation stuff was sort of the NeXT equivelent to the JDK
stuff. When Java was first added, it was added with weird Java bridge so
that your Java code was really still using the underlying ObjC frameworks,
to allow both Java and ObjC code (even in the same app!) to use the same
underlying WO. When the complete re-write in native Java was done, it was
probably a lot easier to translate the Foundation classes to Java,
API-compatible, rather than try to fix all the code everywhere to use Java
JDK util stuff instead of Foundation stuff. On top of that, it allowed
backwards compatibility with WO developer code already written to use
Foundation stuff, and that was pretty important.
So the 'reason' the Foundation stuff is used is really more historical than
deliberate, as far as I can tell. That said, I generally like the
Foundation stuff a lot BETTER than the java.util stuff. If they ever
remove it or deprecate it, I'll be sad, because I'm used to the Foundation
stuff. But I'd expect they'd take some steps in this direction one way or
the other, for the reasons Scott says. I would hope they will do it in such
a way that everything plays nice with the java.util stuff, but we can still
keep using the Foundation stuff too.
--Jonathan
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.