Re: On the future of WO (here we go again)
Re: On the future of WO (here we go again)
- Subject: Re: On the future of WO (here we go again)
- From: "Morris, Mark" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:34:00 +0000
- Thread-topic: On the future of WO (here we go again)
Just to throw our 2¢ in, we have an extremely large codebase that is very
heavily invested in EOF, using it in several ways that dive deep into its
bowels. ;-) Of course, we also use the WOF part of WO, and all of Wonder.
Regards,
Mark
> On Mar 15, 2019, at 5:51 AM, Hugi Thordarson <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
> In preparation for the coming WODay in Frankfurt, I'd love it if you'd be
> open to having a discussion on the status and future of WO, so we can enter
> the coming work prepared.
>
> I'd like to begin by sharing my own thoughts on the matter, based on my
> current stack and experience. It's a rehash of something I posted to our
> Slack yesterday, may sound revolutionary and will no doubt be controversial,
> but I think some outside-the-box thinking is required at this time. This is
> lengthy, sorry about that…
>
> --
>
> In the past few years I've been working towards minimising the use and effect
> of WO/Wonder on my stack, so when and if The Time comes, I and my customers
> have a migration path forward. Among the things I've done is move from EOF to
> Cayenne and from Ant to Maven (to make using 3rd party jars, including
> Cayenne easier), both of which have turned out to have been very happy
> decisions which I wholeheartedly recommend, regardless of anything else you
> do.
>
> I love working with my WO/Cayenne stack, which is currently only "polluted"
> by the following frameworks:
>
> -- WO:
> * JavaFoundation (indirectly through WO, I never use foundation classes in my
> code unless absolutely required by WO)
> * JavaWebObjects
>
> -- Wonder (I consider Wonder "polluted" since it depends on WO/EOF)
> * ERExtensions (only the WO stuff, not the EOF stuff)
> • Ajax
> • WOOgnl (indirectly for parsing Wonder-style inline templates)
> …and of course then there's the deployment stuff (JavaMonitor,wotaskd,
> adaptors).
>
> Given this, here's my proposal for a way forward:
> * We abandon EOF (and, in fact, any ORM—this is not meant to be a full stack
> effort, initially at least)
> * We re-implement JavaWebObjects as required (and the absolutely necessary
> parts of JavaFoundation, such as KVC and NSBundle) as a single framework
> * We separate the necessary WO stuff from the EOF/D2W stuff in Wonder (as
> well as other totally unrelated things like mail sending frameworks, other
> utility frameworks and "useful applications") and include it in our
> re-implementation
> * We create a fork of WOLips that knows how to live within the New Universe
> * We rule the world
>
> Ideally, what we end with is Just a Web Framework™ with IDE integration (and
> nothing else) that can serve as a basis for future development. While
> re-implementing WO may sound like a huge undertaking, I actually think it's
> smaller than rewriting all of my solutions that depend on it. This probably
> applies to more of you.
>
> Now, looking at my own stack I know this proposal might sound a bit
> self-serving, but I'd like to hear other opinions. I believe it's a realistic
> way forward with (comparatively) minimal development effort. Turns out that
> WOF itself is the only part of the WO/Wonder stack that I really just don't
> want to live without.
>
> This is something I'd like to do, and if anyone likes the idea and is willing
> to participate, I'm confident we can make this work! Doing stuff alone sucks.
>
> Cheers,
> - hugi
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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