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: Dennis Scheffer <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:42:23 +0100
Hi Hugi,
I think your ideas are great and I would love to participate. I agree that some
sort of rewrite of the WebObjects core is inevitable sooner or later. Even at
this point as far as I know certain web technologies like websockets or some of
the new HTTP/2 feature are just not supported. If it were even possible to
implement these features on top of the existing WebObjects core, it would
probably require some "hacks". This makes everything just less future-proof
since I imagine the list of unsupported features will just get longer over the
years.
I think more extensive modularization would be beneficial in other aspects, as
well. It would be pretty cool if we could separate the templating engine from
the webserver framework. That way we could use the engine for other templating
tasks and were also open to the possibility of switching to another webserver
framework if such would fit the respectively changing circumstances better.
I'm really curious to see how this whole idea will develop. :-)
Cheers,
--
Dennis Scheffer
> On 15. Mar 2019, at 11:51, 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