Re: EO & WebServices
Re: EO & WebServices
- Subject: Re: EO & WebServices
- From: Lotsa Cabo <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:38:18 -0500
Anjo, and all other D2W & D2J advocates, let me try to make this simple
for us all...
First, I realize you all have the knowledge on WebObjects that I seek.
So, please do not think I am trying to act like a "know it all." That
is not my intent.
Second, regardless of how passionately any of us feel about using D2W
or D2J, they cannot be used on t his project. Please stop defending
the technologies or arguing why they qualify. The bottom line is that
we must manually code these items... period.
Now, back to my original question...
We need to be able to pass an EO object or class object from a web
application to a Java-based client (using Swing or AWT). In short, how
can one serialize these objects, consume the web service, and
reconstitute the objects without using D2W or D2J?
Bottom line is that we need to be able to build the application and
then troubleshoot and modify it without using a GUI of any kind. As
odd as this may sound to anyone else, this is a field requirement we
set for all of our projects.
Thanx,
Ryan
On Jan 27, 2004, at 8:26 AM, Anjo Krank wrote:
Am 27.01.2004 um 13:50 schrieb Lotsa Cabo:
By "wizard" I mean any technology that automate or otherwise
"handles" a task so a developer will not have to code the same. This
could be a traditional step-by-step question/answer dialog that later
spits out code. A wizard could also be a rules-based system that
automates a task on one system that may otherwise need to be manually
coded on another.
Our logic with NOT using D2W is that certain pieces will be handled
through this rules base system and, therefore, not coded by our
developers. This will force us to be locked in to the WebObjects
platform much more tightly then we can afford at this stage.
Additionally, since all of our folks are .NET guys, by letting WO
handle tasks that would have otherwise been coded by hand, our
developers are not learning as much as they could have.
Simply put, if the D2W functionality allows us to create a block of
code that can later be manipulated without using D2W, then great.
But if any of the D2W UIs will be used in the future to update,
enhance, or troubleshoot the product, we cannot use it.
So, next idea?
I don't really get your reasoning, as when you write "if(foo > 0)
{bar();}" this by no means is the code that will be get executed by
the processor anyway - there is always some layer or another that will
transform high-level code to low-level machine language.
Perhaps you felt better if you thought of the rule system as some sort
of declarative scripting language - one way or another, you "write"
this code. Just like in WOBuilder that lets you "write" page layout
code, with conditionals, loops and subcomponents.
The whole idea behind the tools is that you don't get to write boring,
repetitive stuff - in the case of D2W, layout- and attribute-level
handling code.
But if you don't want to use it then by all means don't:)
_______________________________________________
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.