Re: A "Why WebObjects" Site / Initial Thoughts Please
Re: A "Why WebObjects" Site / Initial Thoughts Please
- Subject: Re: A "Why WebObjects" Site / Initial Thoughts Please
- From: Michael Parlee <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:39:58 -0700
I'm actually interested in the Tapestry for WO developers idea. My
company decided to go with Oracle9iAS and J2EE instead of web objects.
I immediately started looking at Tapestry and Cayenne as an
alternative. I wasn't able to go with Cayenne but Oracle TopLink was
given the okay.
I've been using Tapestry for several months now and I quite like it. I
still prefer WO in many ways but Tapestry is very close to WO in
concept and it has fantastic support from its author, Howard Lewis
Ship. There is open discussion of Tapestry's future and Howard
considers and responds to almost every suggestion.
Unlike Sun's JSF, Tapestry has no Struts or JSP legacy which is IMHO a
big plus.
Personally, I'd still be using WO if I wasn't forced to switch. I
don't believe WO/EOF will die. Apple is actively developing key
applications with it in the form of iTMS and .Mac. These apps are too
valuable to Apple to develop them in a dying technology. However,
marketing WO is clearly not a priority for Apple and for those of us
who must sell the technology to customers and employers this just
doesn't work.
Things I'd like to see in a Tapestry for WO developers site would be
examples of using Cayenne models from Tapestry, tips for converting
EOModels using Cayenne, a translation table comparing the "WO way" and
the "Tapestry way", best practices for memory management in Tapestry
(persistence is different), etc.
Some tapestry related resources for your enjoyment:
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry, http://www.t-deli.com,
http://www.objectstyle.org/cayenne/index.html
Mike
On Jul 3, 2004, at 9:41 AM, Michael Engelhart wrote:
I think that maybe a more constructive use of our collective time
would be to write a tool that generated a Tapestry shell project from
a WebObjects project. I've only briefly looked at Tapestry but the
front-end code is very similar. The OR stuff would llkely be much
harder but if Cayenne or Hibernate generates a text or XML version of
the mapping, it may be that we could write some code to convert
WebObjects to Tapestry. I've thought about a starting a project
internally to develop a Tapestry version alongside of the WebObjects
version so that there is a fallback approach in case WO dies or
doesn't grow in the next few years. I don't think it will but all
the FUD out there on the subject can rattle anyones nerves when a big
project is being developed.
This sort of tool would greatly alleviate the concern that some
newcomers are going to be stuck with a sinking ship.
Also Tapestry just seems like a likely fit from my perspective because
I personally can't stand using EJB so I wouldn't consider "switching"
to that model but maybe others would want to work on something like
that (although I'm guessing that would be immensely complex).
just a thought...
Mike
On Jul 3, 2004, at 11:08 AM, Trae Nickelson wrote:
I still think we might all be better served by a site that weaned us
all off of WebObjects. Kind of a "WebObjects Anonymous" site. A
14-step program with a strong support group that helps us all put
this thing out of its misery and move on.
_______________________________________________
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.