Re: [Wonder-disc] log4j version update?
Re: [Wonder-disc] log4j version update?
- Subject: Re: [Wonder-disc] log4j version update?
- From: Simon McLean <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:05:52 +0100
I don't disagree with anything you are saying - and if it were open
source it would no doubt attract many more people to the platform.
But it's just not going to happen.
Here's a thought: We spent some time several months back looking at
alternative frameworks and one thing we did do was tinker with
getting Cayenne to work under a WO app. If we could get that to work
surely we would have the best of both worlds ?
Simon
On 30 Jun 2007, at 16:25, Steven Mark McCraw wrote:
Which bits of it would you like them to open up ? and why ?
I would like every bit of it opened up, and the reason is that
Apple moves like a glacier in response to fixing glaring issues
that WebObjects has had in the past. If you adopted Webobjects
prior to 5.2, you know what I'm talking about. The wonder
community is far more responsive to issues, and if it had direct
access to the source, it would be much easier to patch problems.
Why *wouldn't* you want the source?
Just about everything i want to tinker with is already open
source, because the Wonder project either covers it or has
replacements for the closed source bits i have any interest in.
Yes, and if WO had been open sourced, you wouldn't need a separate
framework. You wouldn't need replacements, because the fixes would
already be in WebObjects.
What about EOF ? Do i care it's closed source. Not at all:
- it works perfectly (ok, there's a couple of bugs, but nothing to
cry about)
- it has a wonderful, elegant design, which despite many attempts
has still not been matched by any other java framework (IMHO)
- it's very stable
- it's very scalable
- it is supported and maintained by Apple
- it's free
EOF does not work perfectly. Outside of all the things wonder
fixes for you, I would call it kind of a mess, especially if you
follow the documentation Apple provides (although they have done
better as of late).
I agree it's better than most of it's competitors, but it certainly
has its share of frustrations. That is just my opinion. I am
glad EOF has been kinder to you.
"supported and maintained by Apple" is another matter of opinion.
In my opinion, it is not supported and maintained well. Many of
the important fixes/workarounds/documentation attempts have come
from outside of Apple.
I see EOF as an extension of my database. We use MySQL - a great
open source database. Have I ever tinkered with the source code of
MySQL ? Of course not - i haven't even downloaded it, let alone
looked at it. It works well and that enables me to build great
apps. And that's all i care about.
I also use MySQL, and I agree with you. It is great. I have never
had the problems with MySQL that I have had with EOF. With great
source code, you never need to tinker, and I never have. But,
could it be that MySQL is great because the source code is
available, and people who understand it and are more inclined to
tinker have been able to fix problems they have had in the past?
It's hard to know for sure, but there have been many, many
frustrating instances for me in the past where having the code to
EOF would have helped me tremendously, if not to fix a problem in
EOF, at least to figure out what was going on.
_______________________________________________
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