Re: How to contribute ?

[David LeBer]

Yeah, I was just thinking about WebScript.

Never used it though, since we jumped right to Java with WO 4.5.

D

On 2013-01-15, at 11:16 AM, Mark Morris  wrote:

> As I recall the .api files were used by WOBuilder to indicate the component's 
> bindings, including data types, required/optional, etc. This was really 
> useful for reusable components.
> 
> And editing the components on the fly... that takes me back. My first WO app 
> was originally written in WebScript, where the layout AND the logic could be 
> edited on the fly!
> 
> -- Mark
> 
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Ted Archibald  wrote:
> 
>> I concur seems crazy to me.  I just seem to recall the old Apple 
>> documentation placed alot of emphasis on writing your business logic once, 
>> building once, then editing your components to suite your needs.  But I 
>> could be wrong, I haven't read that stuff in years. 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Chuck Hill  wrote:
>> 
>> On 2013-01-14, at 5:32 PM, Ted Archibald wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >> For another example, I've no idea why *.api files are included in a 
>> >> deployment build
>> > Good question.  Historical oversight?
>> >> when they are a purely build-time artifact (aren't they?).
>> >
>> >
>> > Aren't they included because at one time it was common practice to edit 
>> > components on the fly without rebuilding the app? I seem to recall this 
>> > was mentioned in the old documentation.
>> 
>> If anyone ever did that to a deployed app, it was not a very good practice.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
>> 
>> Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall 
>> knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems.
>> http://www.global-village.net/gvc/practical_webobjects
>> 
>> Global Village Consulting ranks 13th in 2012 in BIV's Top 100 Fastest 
>> Growing Companies in B.C!
>> Global Village Consulting ranks 76th in 24th annual PROFIT 200 ranking of 
>> Canada’s Fastest-Growing Companies by PROFIT Magazine!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Webobjects-dev mailing list  (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mark.morris%40experian.com
>> 
>> This email sent to mark.mor...@experian.com
> 
> ___
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Webobjects-dev mailing list  (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/dleber_wodev%40codeferous.com
> 
> This email sent to dleber_wo...@codeferous.com


 ___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list  (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: How to contribute ?

[Mark Morris]

As I recall the .api files were used by WOBuilder to indicate the component's 
bindings, including data types, required/optional, etc. This was really useful 
for reusable components.

And editing the components on the fly... that takes me back. My first WO app 
was originally written in WebScript, where the layout AND the logic could be 
edited on the fly!

-- Mark

On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Ted Archibald 
mailto:ted.archib...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I concur seems crazy to me.  I just seem to recall the old Apple documentation 
placed alot of emphasis on writing your business logic once, building once, 
then editing your components to suite your needs.  But I could be wrong, I 
haven't read that stuff in years.

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Chuck Hill 
mailto:ch...@global-village.net>> wrote:

On 2013-01-14, at 5:32 PM, Ted Archibald wrote:

>
>> For another example, I've no idea why *.api files are included in a 
>> deployment build
> Good question.  Historical oversight?
>> when they are a purely build-time artifact (aren't they?).
>
>
> Aren't they included because at one time it was common practice to edit 
> components on the fly without rebuilding the app? I seem to recall this was 
> mentioned in the old documentation.

If anyone ever did that to a deployed app, it was not a very good practice.


--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development

Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall 
knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems.
http://www.global-village.net/gvc/practical_webobjects

Global Village Consulting ranks 13th in 2012 in BIV's Top 100 Fastest Growing 
Companies in B.C!
Global Village Consulting ranks 76th in 24th annual PROFIT 200 ranking of 
Canada’s Fastest-Growing Companies by PROFIT Magazine!









___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list  
(Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mark.morris%40experian.com

This email sent to mark.mor...@experian.com

 ___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list  (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: How to contribute ?

[Ted Archibald]

I concur seems crazy to me.  I just seem to recall the old Apple
documentation placed alot of emphasis on writing your business logic once,
building once, then editing your components to suite your needs.  But I
could be wrong, I haven't read that stuff in years.

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:

>
> On 2013-01-14, at 5:32 PM, Ted Archibald wrote:
>
> >
> >> For another example, I've no idea why *.api files are included in a
> deployment build
> > Good question.  Historical oversight?
> >> when they are a purely build-time artifact (aren't they?).
> >
> >
> > Aren't they included because at one time it was common practice to edit
> components on the fly without rebuilding the app? I seem to recall this was
> mentioned in the old documentation.
>
> If anyone ever did that to a deployed app, it was not a very good practice.
>
>
> --
> Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
>
> Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall
> knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems.
> http://www.global-village.net/gvc/practical_webobjects
>
> Global Village Consulting ranks 13th in 2012 in BIV's Top 100 Fastest
> Growing Companies in B.C!
> Global Village Consulting ranks 76th in 24th annual PROFIT 200 ranking of
> Canada’s Fastest-Growing Companies by PROFIT Magazine!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 ___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list  (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: How to contribute ?

[Ted Archibald]

> For another example, I've no idea why *.api files are included in a
> deployment build
>
> Good question.  Historical oversight?
>
> when they are a purely build-time artifact (aren't they?).
>
>
>
Aren't they included because at one time it was common practice to edit
components on the fly without rebuilding the app? I seem to recall this was
mentioned in the old documentation.
 ___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list  (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: How to contribute ?

[Gavin Eadie]

Wow!  I feel a lot better now.  I said "this is a talented and generous group 
of people" and it just proved itself again.

(a) my apologies Pascal .. of all the people's names I could screw up, yours is 
most inappropriate.

(b) Chuck was 100% right on the spilt install suggestion (I claim the small 
boast that I found it before reading his email!)

(c) There is a lot to read in the three replies so far.  I will read, digest 
and respond as necessary.

(d) I'm back running W6 !!

(e) I will contribute to the project.

Thank you .. very much, Gavin

On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Johann Werner  wrote:

> 
> Hi Gavin,
> 
> Am 14.01.2013 um 20:55 schrieb Gavin Eadie :
> 
>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 12:25 PM, James Cicenia  wrote:
>> 
>>> Make sure in your Eclipse Preferences --> WOLips--> Build Preferences 
>>> settings you don't have  "Generate Bundle" checked.
>>> 
>>> That has bit me twice now and consumed many frustrating hours.
>> 
>> A diversion from a grumpy Gavin using "Generate Bundle" as an example of my 
>> trouble.
>> 
>> 
>> I've been programming using WebObjects, off and on, for ten years (and using 
>> Wonder for the last six/seven), and still haven't a clue what "Generate 
>> Bundle" actually means or does.  The most cogent description found by 
>> searching for the phrase in the WOCommunity web site is, "A bundleless build 
>> means that you have unchecked the build option Generate bundles within the 
>> WOLips preferences" .. yippee!  I would like to fix things like that for the 
>> next confused person.
> 
> the problem lies in the complexity of a full fledged WO development: you need 
> WO, Eclipse, WOLips, Wonder, Java, property files, developer tools, … that 
> makes it easy to get something wrong and difficult to understand all the 
> inner workings and interactions. For most people things like bundleless 
> builds should be an unimportant detail and just a free enhancement for those 
> who know (or even need) that feature. That it was needed for James to fix his 
> problem seems not right but is probably due to the aforementioned complexity 
> and the resulting multitude of different installations/settings that are 
> possible.
> 
>> I applaud Robert's (and everyone's) work on Wonder 6 without reservation, 
>> and I sincerely wish I could contribute to it but I feel just enough below 
>> the "expert" level to doubt my abilities to do that.
> 
> Of course many things are complicated (or at least seem so) and feeling 
> daunted to change anything in Wonder is a normal reaction–keep in mind that 
> Wonder is the collected knowledge of so many developers contributing over so 
> many years not to count all the effort and ideas NeXT put into WO and its 
> underlying design! But then we all have begun with no knowledge at all and 
> are now nonetheless creating applications and frameworks with it. Don't think 
> that you have to be an expert to be able to add anything to Wonder. Sure 
> there are parts in Wonder you need to get your head wrapped around–even twice 
> or thrice ;)–but that's only a part of it.
> 
> There are so many things that can be done (and have to be done) in Wonder 
> that doesn't need you to have a doctor's degree in computer science. Let it 
> be simple things like the addition/correction of Javadocs, renaming of 
> cryptic variable names to more meaningful ones, adding generics or like you 
> said "to fix things like that for the next confused person" by contributing 
> to the wiki. Everyone can take an active part in the community. Don't think 
> that that type of contribution is worth less than a complete framework that 
> will cut the development time of everyone's next big project by half. In sum 
> even those little enhancements will add value, make it easier for the next 
> person to understand / use the code and to contribute himself. And with every 
> commit and change you make you gain more insight in Wonder's code and results 
> in you creating better apps or develop them faster (by knowing where to look 
> for a specific method, by using existing code instead of reinventing the 
> wheel, …) and finally being able to make more complex changes in Wonder.
> 
> I hope this doesn't sound too pathetic but I think the community as a whole 
> has a lot more potential to make Wonder even more… wonderful. You think you 
> aren't good enough to create the Next Big Thing? Then make your Next Less Big 
> Thing, even then there will be many people appreciating it. You are not sure 
> if your patch is good / correct / appropriate? Don't hesitate to make a pull 
> request, github has such great features to discuss pull requests and annotate 
> the code with comments and questions waiting to be used. You are saying that 
> you don't have so much time left for such "unpaid work"? In my experience the 
> most difficult part is to know what is actually in Wonder. Wonder is such a 
> big tile of code and ideas that sometimes it is literally a search for a 
> needle in a haystack to fi

Re: How to contribute ?

[Paul Hoadley]

Hi Gavin,

On 15/01/2013, at 6:25 AM, Gavin Eadie  wrote:

> For another example, I've no idea why *.api files are included in a 
> deployment build

Good question.  Historical oversight?

> when they are a purely build-time artifact (aren't they?).

They're a development-time artefact, if you like.  They signal validation rules 
to your IDE.  I'd be interested to know what Johann has in mind for them at 
runtime, though—Johann?

> an app that works correctly on my development Mac that when, when rsync'd to 
> Amazon EC2, doesn't (clicking in an Ajax.framework component doesn't fire the 
> "action" method).  This behavior started when I moved to Wonder 6 so I need 
> to reverse that decision, and stop using W6, to stay productive.

If you can provide a bare minimum example app that exhibits the behaviour, open 
an issue on GitHub and I'll look into it.  Given that you say it still works in 
development, though, I'd first be investigating your production environment and 
looking for relevant differences.  Are you deploying with frameworks embedded?  
Is the browser able to retrieve all the required JavaScript resources for the 
page?

> I'd love to contribute, but don't feel that I can, that feels wrong in so 
> many ways.

I think the barrier to contributing is as low as it's ever been.  Why don't you 
feel that you can?

> I feel quite uncomfortable sending this message

Don't.  We have to talk about this kind of thing.  How could the barrier to 
contributing be lowered further for you?


-- 
Paul Hoadley
http://logicsquad.net/



 ___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list  (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: How to contribute ?

[Johann Werner]

Hi Gavin,

Am 14.01.2013 um 20:55 schrieb Gavin Eadie :

> On Jan 14, 2013, at 12:25 PM, James Cicenia  wrote:
> 
>> Make sure in your Eclipse Preferences --> WOLips--> Build Preferences 
>> settings you don't have  "Generate Bundle" checked.
>> 
>> That has bit me twice now and consumed many frustrating hours.
> 
> A diversion from a grumpy Gavin using "Generate Bundle" as an example of my 
> trouble.
> 
> 
> I've been programming using WebObjects, off and on, for ten years (and using 
> Wonder for the last six/seven), and still haven't a clue what "Generate 
> Bundle" actually means or does.  The most cogent description found by 
> searching for the phrase in the WOCommunity web site is, "A bundleless build 
> means that you have unchecked the build option Generate bundles within the 
> WOLips preferences" .. yippee!  I would like to fix things like that for the 
> next confused person.

the problem lies in the complexity of a full fledged WO development: you need 
WO, Eclipse, WOLips, Wonder, Java, property files, developer tools, … that 
makes it easy to get something wrong and difficult to understand all the inner 
workings and interactions. For most people things like bundleless builds should 
be an unimportant detail and just a free enhancement for those who know (or 
even need) that feature. That it was needed for James to fix his problem seems 
not right but is probably due to the aforementioned complexity and the 
resulting multitude of different installations/settings that are possible.

> I applaud Robert's (and everyone's) work on Wonder 6 without reservation, and 
> I sincerely wish I could contribute to it but I feel just enough below the 
> "expert" level to doubt my abilities to do that.

Of course many things are complicated (or at least seem so) and feeling daunted 
to change anything in Wonder is a normal reaction–keep in mind that Wonder is 
the collected knowledge of so many developers contributing over so many years 
not to count all the effort and ideas NeXT put into WO and its underlying 
design! But then we all have begun with no knowledge at all and are now 
nonetheless creating applications and frameworks with it. Don't think that you 
have to be an expert to be able to add anything to Wonder. Sure there are parts 
in Wonder you need to get your head wrapped around–even twice or thrice ;)–but 
that's only a part of it.

There are so many things that can be done (and have to be done) in Wonder that 
doesn't need you to have a doctor's degree in computer science. Let it be 
simple things like the addition/correction of Javadocs, renaming of cryptic 
variable names to more meaningful ones, adding generics or like you said "to 
fix things like that for the next confused person" by contributing to the wiki. 
Everyone can take an active part in the community. Don't think that that type 
of contribution is worth less than a complete framework that will cut the 
development time of everyone's next big project by half. In sum even those 
little enhancements will add value, make it easier for the next person to 
understand / use the code and to contribute himself. And with every commit and 
change you make you gain more insight in Wonder's code and results in you 
creating better apps or develop them faster (by knowing where to look for a 
specific method, by using existing code instead of reinventing the wheel, …) 
and finally being able to make more complex changes in Wonder.

I hope this doesn't sound too pathetic but I think the community as a whole has 
a lot more potential to make Wonder even more… wonderful. You think you aren't 
good enough to create the Next Big Thing? Then make your Next Less Big Thing, 
even then there will be many people appreciating it. You are not sure if your 
patch is good / correct / appropriate? Don't hesitate to make a pull request, 
github has such great features to discuss pull requests and annotate the code 
with comments and questions waiting to be used. You are saying that you don't 
have so much time left for such "unpaid work"? In my experience the most 
difficult part is to know what is actually in Wonder. Wonder is such a big tile 
of code and ideas that sometimes it is literally a search for a needle in a 
haystack to find a class or method that does exactly what you need just in the 
moment you need it. Knowing what Wonder already offers you for free makes it 
easier to tell your client what you can do for him and how much time it will 
take to create his application.

Ok, have to stop here now ;-)

> For another example, I've no idea why *.api files are included in a 
> deployment build when they are a purely build-time artifact (aren't they?).  
> My version of build.xml hasn't copied them to a build *.woa (or *.war) for 
> many years so I think I'm right -- but the WOLips build.xml does copy them to 
> Resources and that's so engrained in WOLips that it must be intentional 
> (yes/no?).  Should I submit an update via git to improve this b