Re: OT: OpenSource WebObjects...
Re: OT: OpenSource WebObjects...
- Subject: Re: OT: OpenSource WebObjects...
- From: Ricardo Strausz <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:47:52 -0600
Hola Chris y tod@s!
There is a VERY good example of how OSing can benefit a product (in
particular to WO): Linux.
Linux was the dream of a guy which become reality becouse it is open
source; becouse at the universities, the sys-admins were able to
correct small bugs, while servicing a large-scale network cheeply.
Other UNIX were to expensive (think on Solaris, the most common on that
moment) becouse they were "attached" to the architecture. Linux was
FREE in the most open meaning of the word!
Now, WO is cheap enough... in fact, as someone else pointed out, too
cheap to an ignorant to belive it is not a toy... so the point is
other.
I have not a dude that, if it is open, it will get better; there is not
a counter-example out there (at least that I know).
But, who will benefit from WO getting open (and therefore better)?
ONLY we, the developers who already work with WO as primary tool...
I do not see any benefit to Apple in this I$UE; therefore it will be
VERY difficult (if possible) to convince them to open it.
I am not sure how is it going the Darwin project, but my feeling is
that OSing it was just a market desision: "my kernel is as open as
Linux".
While OSing WO, does Apple will get such a commercial word?
Dino
p.s., with respect to your last line: if WO becomes open, I will take a
look to EOF and, if able, will try to get it better; in particular I'd
try to bring back some isues which get lost since EOF 1.0.
On Jan 14, 2004, at 23:50, Christopher Pavicich wrote:
Hi All.
I apologize for the OT post to the list. Lately, I have been pondering
the wisdom of Apple open sourcing WebObjects.
Off the list I've been debating the topic with friends, and I wanted
to cast a wider net, and see what the community feels about the idea.
Arguments in support of OS'ing:
1. Faster turn around for defects.
With more eyes on the code, and the source available, the number of
bugs with
each release should drop. I am not trying to suggest that the WO team
writes bad code, quite the opposite, but with each
release, we all do play the 'what won't work when I migrate this time'
game. The hope would be that the development community would care
enough to improve the product that they use.
2. No more re-inventing the wheel.
A good deal of developer energy on WO projects (especially starting a
new one) goes into making sure that previous bugs or issues are not
repeated or are worked around. Most seasoned WO developers end up with
a pretty solid toolkit of code that goes from gig to gig. If this
could be rolled into the WO codebase, everyone would benefit from the
lessons learned. A further benefit would be the reduction of 'subtle'
bugs in WO. Problems that not all developers are likely to run into,
but that do exist.
3. Integrating some really great WO add-ons directly into the codebase.
I am specifically thinking of the WOnder and WOLips teams. These
people have written some great code, and a good deal of it needs to
(should) make it into the WO codebase. The same argument could be made
for the 'toolkit' type code that most WO developers carry from project
to project. Not everyone has the time / inclination / commitment to
contribute to a project as large as WO or Wonder; a code submission
system for these people might also help the community.
4. The power is in the libraries.
Facing facts (and Apple seems to know this) the battle for the app
server market for the enterprise is over. We have seen servlet
deployment options, and some really cool JBoss integration from Apple.
This is a smart move. Pushing WebObjects as a really brilliant set of
libraries might be smarter still. Convincing some Enterprise Software
Manager to deploy under WO is a hard sell. Convincing his software
engineers to use EOF as a library is simple.
5. Use the Darwin model.
One concern with OS'ing WebObjects might be Apple's loss of control
over the direction of the product. This is where I think that the
Darwin model could shine. The code is open, and the developers are
free to tweak and fix as they need; but Apple still retains control of
the products direction.
Arguments against OS'ing WebObjects:
1. MOST OS PROJECTS FAIL. The failure is mainly do to lack of support
in the community. Would WebObjects survive being OpenSourced? Is the
developer community strong / committed enough?
Would you, as a developer, contribute?
I would be interested in any feedback that the community wants to
provide. Please keep the flames to a minimum.
CMP
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.