Since I used to have to support WOF at NeXT and Apple Enterprise, let me just say that WOF is not just a PURE JAVA WebApplication environment.
It has two version.
My wish is that when they hired Bill Bumgarner and other ObjC gurus who are WOF veterans that they will get serious about reinvigorating the ObjC version of WOF that stopped when some poor decisions were made to jump on the Java bandwagon that virtually eliminated its market advantages.
Now that Apple has almost switched over to Cocoa it won't surprise me WOF gets returned to Cocoa/ObjC.
I left Apple because they couldn't make up their minds in the Enterprise space and I seven years later they are just now getting around to it, in a serious manner.
Up until Tiger that effort is sad, considering NeXT was always able in the Enterprise Markets.
It may not matter anyway, since Apple considers Java to also be part of Cocoa as well as Objective-C.
It may not matter anyway, since Apple considers Java to also be part of Cocoa as well as Objective-C.
Yeh but the minute you tie to to Cocoa, you tie it to the XServe for deployment. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that just means another reason not to go with WebObjects and instead pick Cayenne/Tapestry (which is very, very close).
Yeh but the minute you tie to to Cocoa, you tie it to the XServe for deployment. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that just means another reason not to go with WebObjects and instead pick Cayenne/Tapestry (which is very, very close).
However, keep in mind that a Java application is only truly "tied to Cocoa" when it uses Apple's Cocoa-specific Java extensions. If WebObjects doesn't use these extensions, it will behave like any other Java application; yet, according to Apple's classification, it still falls under the Cocoa umbrella. I find that interesting.
However, keep in mind that a Java application is only truly "tied to Cocoa" when it uses Apple's Cocoa-specific Java extensions. If WebObjects doesn't use these extensions, it will behave like any other Java application; yet, according to Apple's classification, it still falls under the Cocoa umbrella. I find that interesting.
Ok.. we are spitting hairs here... WebObjects does heavily use the Foundation Libraries, which are a part of Cocoa. When you deploy WebObjects it takes a copy of the relevant part of Foundation with it, so you still get the cross-platform nature. So both arguments are true... you are using "Cocoa" (a small part of it anyways), but there is no platform lock in in this case.
Now You can technically go outside that section my manually including other FrameWorks, but that is pretty obviously not portable.
And I too think that moving to Java was a saving grace.
Ok.. we are spitting hairs here... WebObjects does heavily use the Foundation Libraries, which are a part of Cocoa. When you deploy WebObjects it takes a copy of the relevant part of Foundation with it, so you still get the cross-platform nature. So both arguments are true... you are using "Cocoa" (a small part of it anyways), but there is no platform lock in in this case.
Now You can technically go outside that section my manually including other FrameWorks, but that is pretty obviously not portable.
And I too think that moving to Java was a saving grace.
Actually, WebObjects' foundation libraries were separated from Cocoa's in version 5 and now reside at com.webobjects.foundation. These two libraries are not compatible and I believe this indicates that Apple plans to move WO even furter from Cocoa, if anything. (apart from the fact that cocoa-java is something that deserves to die a horrible, horrible death, IMHO ). Some of us dared believe that this separation meant the possibility of an open source WebObjects, but I doubt that will be the case.
I'd rather not discuss CoreData, NDA, blah blah, but I assure you, it's not a replacement for EOF.
At least, I believe that "returning" to Obj-C now would be a major strategic error, since many companies rely on the java compatibility, besides, java is (unfortunately) the de facto standard in this industry, making it essential for a product of this type.
If WebObjects was still a $25k or $50k product, it might be an entirely different story, but that is just not the case and I doubt it ever will be.
It was just posted on OmniGroup's WebObjects list that there are now sessions posted for WebObjects at WWDC... nothing exciting or revealing, but it does keep the status quo. So the thinking behind this thread was all a tempest in a teakettle.
PS... this does not in any way exclude a WO update... it just provides no evidence for one.
WebObjects is Apple's Java-based web application development
platform. Learn about new features and get a glimpse at product
directions in upcoming releases of WebObjects.
____
So I guess they at least show a minor update running on 10.4 & Java 1.5 (what was rumored as WO 5.3) and possibly have an outlook for the next major release...
CoreData will work well for Obj-C desktop apps. While WO is cross-platform and 100% Java-based.
It would make sense to add some features of CoreData to WebObject's EOF. For example, it would be nice to have a binary or XML store. Although most people will use MySQL, OpenBase, ORACLE, etc.
WO should be updated to Java 1.5, Tiger and Xcode 2.0 which I'm sure will happen sooner or later.
It would be nice to see support for XHTML in WebObjects and its tools such as WebObjects Builder and support for cascading stylesheets.
I think WO's build system should be based on ant. To make it easier for those using other platforms and IDEs such as Eclipse.
I'd like to see a native Interface Builder for Java. Instead of translating Cocoa objects to Java. I'm amazed that in all these years there isn't something like Interface Builder for Java.
So I guess they at least show a minor update running on 10.4 & Java 1.5 (what was rumored as WO 5.3) and possibly have an outlook for the next major release...
While the text does really sound like that is the case, some people on the WO list have already pointed out that this is exactly the same text as was used for last years sessions with the same name... and there was nothing new there...
Comments
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Since I used to have to support WOF at NeXT and Apple Enterprise, let me just say that WOF is not just a PURE JAVA WebApplication environment.
It has two version.
My wish is that when they hired Bill Bumgarner and other ObjC gurus who are WOF veterans that they will get serious about reinvigorating the ObjC version of WOF that stopped when some poor decisions were made to jump on the Java bandwagon that virtually eliminated its market advantages.
Now that Apple has almost switched over to Cocoa it won't surprise me WOF gets returned to Cocoa/ObjC.
I left Apple because they couldn't make up their minds in the Enterprise space and I seven years later they are just now getting around to it, in a serious manner.
Up until Tiger that effort is sad, considering NeXT was always able in the Enterprise Markets.
It may not matter anyway, since Apple considers Java to also be part of Cocoa as well as Objective-C.
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
It may not matter anyway, since Apple considers Java to also be part of Cocoa as well as Objective-C.
Yeh but the minute you tie to to Cocoa, you tie it to the XServe for deployment. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that just means another reason not to go with WebObjects and instead pick Cayenne/Tapestry (which is very, very close).
Originally posted by naden
Yeh but the minute you tie to to Cocoa, you tie it to the XServe for deployment. Not necessarily a bad thing, but that just means another reason not to go with WebObjects and instead pick Cayenne/Tapestry (which is very, very close).
However, keep in mind that a Java application is only truly "tied to Cocoa" when it uses Apple's Cocoa-specific Java extensions. If WebObjects doesn't use these extensions, it will behave like any other Java application; yet, according to Apple's classification, it still falls under the Cocoa umbrella. I find that interesting.
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
However, keep in mind that a Java application is only truly "tied to Cocoa" when it uses Apple's Cocoa-specific Java extensions. If WebObjects doesn't use these extensions, it will behave like any other Java application; yet, according to Apple's classification, it still falls under the Cocoa umbrella. I find that interesting.
Ok.. we are spitting hairs here... WebObjects does heavily use the Foundation Libraries, which are a part of Cocoa. When you deploy WebObjects it takes a copy of the relevant part of Foundation with it, so you still get the cross-platform nature. So both arguments are true... you are using "Cocoa" (a small part of it anyways), but there is no platform lock in in this case.
Now You can technically go outside that section my manually including other FrameWorks, but that is pretty obviously not portable.
And I too think that moving to Java was a saving grace.
Originally posted by Karl Kuehn
Ok.. we are spitting hairs here... WebObjects does heavily use the Foundation Libraries, which are a part of Cocoa. When you deploy WebObjects it takes a copy of the relevant part of Foundation with it, so you still get the cross-platform nature. So both arguments are true... you are using "Cocoa" (a small part of it anyways), but there is no platform lock in in this case.
Now You can technically go outside that section my manually including other FrameWorks, but that is pretty obviously not portable.
And I too think that moving to Java was a saving grace.
Actually, WebObjects' foundation libraries were separated from Cocoa's in version 5 and now reside at com.webobjects.foundation. These two libraries are not compatible and I believe this indicates that Apple plans to move WO even furter from Cocoa, if anything. (apart from the fact that cocoa-java is something that deserves to die a horrible, horrible death, IMHO
I'd rather not discuss CoreData, NDA, blah blah, but I assure you, it's not a replacement for EOF.
At least, I believe that "returning" to Obj-C now would be a major strategic error, since many companies rely on the java compatibility, besides, java is (unfortunately) the de facto standard in this industry, making it essential for a product of this type.
If WebObjects was still a $25k or $50k product, it might be an entirely different story, but that is just not the case and I doubt it ever will be.
PS... this does not in any way exclude a WO update... it just provides no evidence for one.
One WWDC 2005 session description now says:
___
WebObjects Overview
Enterprise IT
WebObjects is Apple's Java-based web application development
platform. Learn about new features and get a glimpse at product
directions in upcoming releases of WebObjects.
____
So I guess they at least show a minor update running on 10.4 & Java 1.5 (what was rumored as WO 5.3) and possibly have an outlook for the next major release...
CoreData will work well for Obj-C desktop apps. While WO is cross-platform and 100% Java-based.
It would make sense to add some features of CoreData to WebObject's EOF. For example, it would be nice to have a binary or XML store. Although most people will use MySQL, OpenBase, ORACLE, etc.
WO should be updated to Java 1.5, Tiger and Xcode 2.0 which I'm sure will happen sooner or later.
It would be nice to see support for XHTML in WebObjects and its tools such as WebObjects Builder and support for cascading stylesheets.
I think WO's build system should be based on ant. To make it easier for those using other platforms and IDEs such as Eclipse.
I'd like to see a native Interface Builder for Java. Instead of translating Cocoa objects to Java. I'm amazed that in all these years there isn't something like Interface Builder for Java.
Originally posted by jabba
Thanks for the update.
So I guess they at least show a minor update running on 10.4 & Java 1.5 (what was rumored as WO 5.3) and possibly have an outlook for the next major release...
While the text does really sound like that is the case, some people on the WO list have already pointed out that this is exactly the same text as was used for last years sessions with the same name... and there was nothing new there...
We can still hope...