After seeing some of the other posts, I'd like to be more explicit.
I think WebObjects is still the most elegant solution to a really wide range of projects. There's a learning curve of course, but not to the degree of j2ee which requires serious knowledge of very different frameworks to do a good integration job. WebObjects frameworks were designed to work together and have consistent style and naming conventions.
If you are developing a site for a specific purpose and it will be under your control for some time to come, WebObjects could be a good solution.
But if you're going to be looking for work in the field going forward, WO isn't a growth area. Just the opposite. Just about all our old clients are migrating off. Open source isn't a panacea for making the software better, but it could help with acceptance. Companies that won't commit to WebObjects because it is (to their eyes) an obscure and neglected Apple product might be willing to use it if they thought it would have a life in the open source world, especially if it became a favorite of developers (which I think it could if they tried it).
I would happily use WO on my own site, and I am even getting WO work now, but there isn't much of it left out there.
Jim
On Aug 26, 2006, at 4:19 AM, David Sanchez wrote: Thank you for your quick response.
Looking into J2EE, Cayenne/Tapestry can compete with WO?
Ruby on Rails can create client/server apps that do not use a browser, like WO?
I do not understand why you believe open source WO can make it better.
Open source could be nice, but it is not faster than an enterprise (with money) to develop and back up a project.
Spare time from programmers in the world cannot beat an army of developers.
And, WO for Objective-C wouldn't be better for WO. It would be faster, well integrated with Core Data and with mature XCode tools?
David
|