I don't disagree. Indeed, doing a complex bespoke app in force.com is far more risky than a bespoke Java app.
But I see there being 'tool for the job' problem: Force.com -> Rails -> Grails -> Spring MVC/Hibernate -> JSF/JPA -> GWT/REST And if you are looking at creating a multi-user Access DB / Lotus notes / Departmental workflow/CRUD app, then its in the sweet spot. That transactional Ebay clone... not so much. On Nov 7, 1:33 pm, Jeremy Ross <jeremy.g.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > You have to be really careful with these "VB for the web" platforms. > In any non-trivial app, you start hitting all sorts of limitations > that will have you pining for the good ol' days. > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1664503/disadvantages-of-the-force... > > On Nov 4, 8:09 pm, Steven Herod <steven.he...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I started at 11.35am and finished at 11.55am > > >http://login.salesforce.com/ > > > Username: javapo...@gmail.com > > Password: <contact me> > > > You can run your daily report herehttps://ap1.salesforce.com/00O90000001as5W > > > Anybody else can see a few screenshots here: > > >http://picasaweb.google.com/steven.herod/DropBox# > > > A few more minutes, and I can schedule the report to run daily and > > email you the result or integrate it with your orgs single sign on > > solution > > > This is not 'Scaffolding' - if I need to I can fall back to code in > > Eclipse or browser based editor, but mostly its a point and click > > exercise. And this is just the tip of functionality iceberg. > > > My point with this is that we talk about a lot of hard core topics on > > the Posse list and sometimes I think we're in two camps. > > > There are the those that debate the esoteric finer points of code and > > language features which (may) make the underlying implementation of a > > tool like force.com better - and then there are the other group (such > > as me) working on the business problems that pay the mortgage and keep > > the boss happy. > > > If you are looking at the best business outcome, worry less about > > Scala vs Java, closures vs anonymous inner classes, and think at the > > macro level. > > > On Nov 5, 10:14 am, dkhaywood <dkhayw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 4, 6:08 pm, Rakesh <rakesh.mailgro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > need is at least 3 tables > > > > (employee, job description and shift data) > > > > > I would like to know how some you people would tackle it with the > > > > technologies discussed. > > > > Since you ask... I'm project lead on Apache Isis, just entered the > > > Apache incubator, which is an implementation of the naked objects > > > pattern (sorry, no website yet). So, I'd use that. And if you were > > > a .NET shop, then I'd be using Naked Objects MVC (google for some > > > screencasts). > > > > I nearly replied to Steven Herrod's earlier post in this thread that > > > web frameworks need to raise the abstraction level... how about a > > > framework where all you write is the domain classes. That, at least, > > > is the naked objects proposition. > > > > Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
