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: Gino Pacitti <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:45:31 +0000
+1
> On 15 Mar 2019, at 15:42, Dennis Scheffer <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:email@hidden>)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>
>>
>> This email sent to email@hidden <mailto:email@hidden>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden
> <mailto:email@hidden>)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden <mailto: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