Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
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: Karl Moskowski <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:41:15 -0400
On 26-Aug-06, at 3:06 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Aug 26, 2006, at 9:49 AM, David LeBer wrote:
Lets look at this from a completely different (hypothetical) angle:
The WO Frameworks have a very large number of Apple developers
pounding on them daily. These developers are working on projects
that range from internal ones we never see to the external high
profile ones like iTMS and .Mac. Some of the projects arguably are
the highest trafficked WebObjects applications on the planet. I'm
sure these developers are finding bugs - and fixing them because
they need their stuff to work and they have access to the code.
Many (though not all) are *not* using Xcode+WOBuilder+EOModeler to
build their apps.
There is at least one person still stubbornly clinging to Xcode (hi
Alan!).
Hey, I prefer Xcode to Eclipse too. Sosumi. :-)
If they just documented the inter-app communication protocols among
Xcode, WO Builder, EO Modeler, etc., it would make for even better
for third-party tools that work with Xcode.
The WO Tools have a very small number of Apple developers assigned
to them (Maybe 4, maybe less). The task of completely recreating
the WO tools stack (I used "stack", do I get a prize?)
Yes! Please apply on-line to claim your prize!
Those few dedicated WO engineers are augmented by the dozens on the
iTMS team, plus the .Mac, Apple Store and internal IT engineers who
have access to the code-base and can at least point out bug fixes
internally.
sans a dependency to the Cocoa-Java bridge is virtually impossible
given the resources available.
So from a completely pragmatic standpoint, if you were in charge of
allocating resources for the tools within Apple, and you saw that
the WOCommunity(tm) was doing an arguably better job at the task
you were facing, would that not give you some ideas? Might you not
say: "If we drop the tools development, we can free up resources to
focus on improving the Frameworks and integrate the fixes and
enhancements our internal groups are finding into the public
releases".
That is what I think happened.
I also think that this is what happened.
For me, the bottom line is this: Regardless of what is going on in
house at Apple, the boost this has given the WOCommunity is
priceless.
Agreed. We have a clear direction now, no more sitting on the fence
hoping that Apple makes new tools. And with the focus on the core
frameworks instead of tools, we can reasonably expect some bug fixes
and enhancements driven from the projects at Apple.
It seems to me that this is as far as Apple's going to open the
kimono, at least for now. Maybe there are intellectual property
issues preventing the opening of WO or the existing tools. Or they
want to keep control to ensure it provides for the best iTMS. Or
there are inter-office politics involved. Or there's gel at the
centre of WOF and Homeland Security won't allow it.
Either way, I suspect the deprecation of the Obj-C-Java bridge may
have something to do with where Apple's taking the language and its
run-time in the future. While Obj-C 2.0 on Leopard may allow for a
functioning bridge, planned future changes may make it not worth the
engineering effort to keep the bridge working.
Disclaimer: This is all conjecture, I have no inside information,
feel free to dismiss it if you wish.
What David said. :-)
Ditto for me.
BTW, I've used two classic Apple-isms. Do I get a prize too? :-)
Chuck
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/
practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
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