• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06


  • Subject: Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
  • From: Paul Lynch <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:42:55 +0100

On 26 Aug 2006, at 16:04, David Sanchez wrote:

On Aug 26, 2006, at 6:31 AM, Paul Lynch wrote:

On 26 Aug 2006, at 09:19, David Sanchez wrote:

Looking into J2EE, Cayenne/Tapestry can compete with WO?

No. Integration in a framework and the quality of its tools count for a lot (and are usually undercredited).

I do not understand this fully. So, WO integrates better and have better tools (even though those are not from Apple).

Most web server environments don't include all that is in WO. Making them all interface smoothly is a major task, and involves considerable extra work when compared to a pure WO deployment. The (Apple supplied) WO tools, XCode, WOBuilder and EOModeler, make managing the definition files that are required very much easier. Try a Spring/Hibernate deployment, or J2EE, to see what I mean. Configuration files can amount to more lines than your actual code, and maintaining them by hand isn't a joyful experience - WO tools substantially reduce this hassle.


This is one area where Rails is strong - their philosophy is to avoid configuration files by assuming reasonable defaults, what I call "programming by consensus". WebObjects approach isn't as extreme, and has the advantage of being more flexible.

I assume I can mix different interfaces for the same app at the same time in Web Objects. (Maybe I am wrong, I am still learning)

Sure. You still have to create all the interfaces you wish, though, so you'll want to be sparing. D2WebServices makes a simple SOAP interface trivial, which helps.


I have read rails is also slower than Java. Have you had any experience with it?

Yes. It is. This isn't a big deal for the relatively small sites that Rails is being used to develop, but would be a killer for major WO applications - like iTMS.


Paul

_______________________________________________
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


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
      • From: David Sanchez <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06 (From: David Sanchez <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06 (From: James Stead <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06 (From: David Sanchez <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06 (From: Paul Lynch <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06 (From: David Sanchez <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
  • Next by Date: Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
  • Previous by thread: Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
  • Next by thread: Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread