Hi Mike,
Yes Mike, I get one WO page as response and that is split into many sub-pages
for user data manageability.
I will check out AjaxPing component. I was just wondering why do we use
prototype.js in our Ajax framework or most of Wonder projects (pardon me, if am
wrong,
Hi all,
can anyone provide any clues about why the following stack trace might
be happening?
I believe it's related to attachments and chunked vs non-chunked
requests.
If I turn chunking off I get the below stack. If I turn it on then
WO's not liking the lack of Content-Length.
WO5.4.3
Hi Mike;
Given how close "mod_balancer" is to the traditional WO deployment,
it might be a nice approach for "mod_balancer" to take on-board the
few additional concepts necessary to support something which works
like "JavaMonitor / wotaskd" so that deploying a WO system does not
need a sp
Given how close "mod_balancer" is to the traditional WO deployment,
it might be a nice approach for "mod_balancer" to take on-board the
few additional concepts necessary to support something which works
like "JavaMonitor / wotaskd" so that deploying a WO system does not
need a special Apach
Hi Mike;
I spent a bit of time on this a few years ago and developed (and open-
sourced) an AJP WO adaptor (AJP is a binary stream for HTTP used
widely with Jetty and Tomcat deployment) to work with the built-in
Apache 2.2 mod_balancer / mod_ajp / mod_proxy / mod_???. It worked
really wel
On 8. Jul. 2009, at 15:09 , Mike Schrag wrote:
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made
when, only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release schedule
back into the main development tools. I think it's good news, but
hopefully it means that they'll stop developing their
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Klaus Berkling wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Klaus Berkling wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2009, at
On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made
when, only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release schedule
back into the main development tools. I think it's good news, but
hopefully it means that they'll stop developing thei
Nice job, guys. I'm impressed. Now if only the Appleinsider article
would link directly to there instead of the original article!
David
On 8-Jul-09, at 3:15 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
Finally, something worth reading!
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/07/webobjects-sliced-
from-106but-pr
Finally, something worth reading!
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/07/webobjects-sliced-from-106but-prognosis-of-death-premature.ars
--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of We
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made when,
only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release schedule back into
the main development tools. I think it's good news, but hopefully
it means that they'll stop developing their unnecessary deployment
that virtually nobody u
On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Klaus Berkling wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Klaus Berkling wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Mike Nowak wrote:
Right because then my boss sees the article and says oh
On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Klaus Berkling wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Mike Nowak wrote:
Right because then my boss sees the article and says oh no,
should we stop using WebObjects?
No
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made when,
only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release schedule back into
the main development tools. I think it's good news, but hopefully it
means that they'll stop developing the
On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Klaus Berkling wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Mike Nowak wrote:
Right because then my boss sees the article and says oh no, should
we stop using WebObjects?
No, you should NOT stop using WebObjects. Remember
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Mike Nowak wrote:
Right because then my boss sees the article and says oh no, should
we stop using WebObjects?
No, you should NOT stop using WebObjects. Remember Radar O'Reilly
on M*A*S*H? "Wait for it"
Yu
To paraphrase Mike, you really need to discover _why_ it is slow
before you can start to address how to make it faster. If you just
guess at what might be wrong, you are likely to expend a lot of effort
to little avail. Knowledge is key in optimization.
Chuck
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:24 PM,
Yeah you could setup a Report EOModel that has a different entity
definition on the same table, too. The view approach potentially
makes it a little easier to define fancier queries that you can just
treat like a regular (non-editable) EO.
ms
On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Mr. Frank Cobia wr
Sorry. I meant never use them in the report or the command line
application. They are used by my web apps.
Frank
On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Is there any advantage to creating a view and pointing my new
entity to that view as opposed to just pointing the entity directly
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Mike Nowak wrote:
Right because then my boss sees the article and says oh no, should
we stop using WebObjects?
No, you should NOT stop using WebObjects. Remember Radar O'Reilly on
M*A*S*H? "Wait for it"
Chuck
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Janine Sisk
Is there any advantage to creating a view and pointing my new entity
to that view as opposed to just pointing the entity directly to the
table and leaving out the fields I am not interested in? It seems
like the view would just add overhead, but you may know some
advantage to using it that
There are definitely a lot of fetches since the reports are custom to
each user and there are more than 40,000 users, but the fetch does
indeed pull a lot of rows and each row has a large text description
that I am not using.
I am using prefetching for the two relationships I use, but I am
Right because then my boss sees the article and says oh no, should we
stop using WebObjects?
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Janine Sisk wrote:
While I completely agree with you, we discussed not long ago on this
list that the way Apple worded it in the Snow Leopard documentation
left a bit to
Sorry, didn't know that.
On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
You are aware that the ADC forbids discussing seeds in a public
mailing list?
We have a developer seed of OSX 10.6, snow leopard.
It did not come pre-installed with a WebObjects deployment, but
i've been trying ins
speaking without knowledge of any specifics of your app, it's
generally number of roundtrips that is the big performance killer
rather than the number of columns that come back, unless you have an
especially large number of columns that have especially large data ...
if it's #2, and this is
if you're keeping them on a single page for your entire process and
rendering the wizard process in js, then you won't be transitioning
across pages, so you won't be burning your cache. at that point, all
that matters is that your session is kept alive. AjaxBusyIndicator
doesn't ping -- it
I have created a WebObjects command line app (uses ERXMainRunner) that
generates a report for each user (40,000+) on my system and it is
running too slow. I have come up with two ways to optimize it and I
was wondering which you thought is better.
The report uses a table (TableA) that has a
You are aware that the ADC forbids discussing seeds in a public
mailing list?
We have a developer seed of OSX 10.6, snow leopard.
It did not come pre-installed with a WebObjects deployment, but i've
been trying install and deploy a WebObjects app anyway.
I installed the latest developer tool
We have a developer seed of OSX 10.6, snow leopard.
It did not come pre-installed with a WebObjects deployment, but i've
been trying install and deploy a WebObjects app anyway.
I installed the latest developer tools, and the latest WebObjects
(5.4.3) deployment, and was able to get JavaMonitor
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your response Mike. I hope you are referring to "AjaxBusyIndicator"
in the Wonder/Ajax Examples for ping in the background.
As you say, "Yes, if you bind to an action that falls out of the backtrack
cache, you'll get that error. This can happen for several reasons.", do we
On Jul 8, 2009, at 2:23 PM, David Holt wrote:
On 8-Jul-09, at 11:09 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:03 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:22 PM, William Hatch wrote:
I wouldn't have expected it to be coming from one of core
frameworks given the outstanding na
On 8-Jul-09, at 11:09 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:03 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:22 PM, William Hatch wrote:
I wouldn't have expected it to be coming from one of core
frameworks given the outstanding nature of support for war
deployments
WAR d
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:23 AM, David Holt wrote:
On 8-Jul-09, at 11:09 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:03 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:22 PM, William Hatch wrote:
I wouldn't have expected it to be coming from one of core
frameworks given the outstanding n
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:03 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:22 PM, William Hatch wrote:
I wouldn't have expected it to be coming from one of core
frameworks given the outstanding nature of support for war
deployments
WAR deployment is a piece of cake, unless it's broke
On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:22 PM, William Hatch wrote:
I wouldn't have expected it to be coming from one of core frameworks
given the outstanding nature of support for war deployments
WAR deployment is a piece of cake, unless it's broke, then it sucks,
big time. :-/
Dave
_
Hi Bill,
On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:16 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be
tied to OS X and Xcode
While I completely agree with you, we discussed not long ago on this
list that the way Apple worded it in the Snow Leopard documentation
left a bit to be desired. I can see how the author came to their
conclusion, especially if they were looking for something to hype.
This is exactly why
Ahh, that's the ticket. Thanks David. I wouldn't have expected it to
be coming from one of core frameworks given the outstanding nature of
support for war deployments
Bill
On Jul 8, 2009, at 9:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Hi Bill,
I feel your WOServletAdaptor Unavailable pain. It
Yes, all of our applications are deployed in a J2EE container 6%
Yes, some of our applications are deployed in a J2EE container 20%
No, we never deploy applications in a J2EE environment 74%
Yes, absolutely, and preaching to the choir is doing nothing for us all.
Bill
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more
frequ
Le 09-07-08 à 12:32, Miguel Arroz a écrit :
Hi!
On 2009/07/08, at 17:14, Mark Morris wrote:
??? I'd guest that the majority of WO projects are deployed like
this. Servlet deployment is a distant second.
Chuck
I'm glad someone else said it. I thought perhaps I was just out of
touch!
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more
frequent releases of updates to the frameworks.
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made when,
only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release s
Hi!
On 2009/07/08, at 17:14, Mark Morris wrote:
??? I'd guest that the majority of WO projects are deployed like
this. Servlet deployment is a distant second.
Chuck
I'm glad someone else said it. I thought perhaps I was just out of
touch!
-- Mark
Surveys say so, I think. Pascal?
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more
frequent rele
You will find more info about ir here.
http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WOL/Using+WOLips+With+Multiple+Versions+of+WebObjects
On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Amedeo Mantica wrote:
hello, junt today I'm hearing WOInstaller, what is exactly? there is
a webpage explaining?
Regards
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more frequent
releases of updates to the frameworks.
seriously? I
hello, junt today I'm hearing WOInstaller, what is exactly? there is a
webpage explaining?
Regards
Amedeo
On 08/lug/09, at 17:53, Joe Little wrote:
Currently?
With WO 5.4.x (I think all versions) you get the code through
development, and the license included therein states free to deploy
a
Currently?
With WO 5.4.x (I think all versions) you get the code through
development, and the license included therein states free to deploy
anywhere. Thus, you get it via Xcode (up to 5.4.2) or ADC (5.4.3) or
indirectly through the WOInstaller.jar for 5.4.3 and 5.3.3. I believe
there was still a
Hello everyone,
The complete session list and description for WOWODC East is now
online :
http://www.wocommunity.org/wowodc09/east/topics.html
Reminder : early-bird pricing ends on August 1th, cut-off for the
hotel discount is July 28th. It's the same week-end as our NASCAR
(Nati
Kieran Kelleher wrote:
The fact that it took apple this long to unshackle webobjects from
OSX / XCode is ridiculous.
Please forgive me if this is a stupid question but the answer seems to
be hush-hush - a bit like how we don't speak of why Uncle Tommy spent
three years in jail and is not
Thanks David,
This is exactly what I was looking for.
I will try it.
Gracias.
On Jul 7, 2009, at 6:00 PM, David Avendasora wrote:
On Jul 7, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Miguel Angel Torres Avila wrote:
Hi, Thanks for the hint about using Prototypes, it is really useful.
That brought to my mine a
ok so I override the method and return true, but still I can go back to the
application when pushing the back button of the browser.
:(
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Gustavo Pizano
wrote:
> I was reading... so I have to overrride the
> isStateless
>
> method?
>
> G
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at
I was reading... so I have to overrride the
isStateless
method?
G
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Gustavo Pizano
wrote:
> MMM first time I heard the expression, i guess its stateful, what can I do
> then?
>
> G
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Catherine Ferris wrote:
>
>> Hi Gustavo,
>>
>
I agree. After all, it is not uncommon to want to install and maintain
your own version of core technologies that your app depends on. For
example I never used the built-in MySQL in OS X Server. I always
disabled that, and downloaded and installed the exact version of
standard os x binaries
MMM first time I heard the expression, i guess its stateful, what can I do
then?
G
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Catherine Ferris wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> Is your logout page stateful of stateless ?
>
> If it's stateful then the displaying the page will create a new session
> automatically.
Hi Gustavo,
Is your logout page stateful of stateless ?
If it's stateful then the displaying the page will create a new
session automatically.
Catherine Ferris
e-mail: k...@tycho.org.uk
web: http://www.tycho.org.uk/
On 8 Jul 2009, at 14:21, Gustavo Pizano wrote:
Hello I have the following
Yes, if you bind to an action that falls out of the backtrack cache,
you'll get that error. This can happen for several reasons.
Not sure what you mean about using component actions and direct
actions freely. Component actions are powerful but just have intrinsic
limitations. If you have a
Hello I have the following in the WOComponent
Log
Out
in the .java. I have the follwoing:
/**
* Simple logout action that leaves the user on the page returned by the
default
* Direct Action.
* @return WORedirect to default Direct Action
*/
public static final NSDictionary noWO
Hi Bill,
I feel your WOServletAdaptor Unavailable pain. It sucks and it's never
the same problem twice.
Take JavaXML.framework out of your build path and then add back
anything you specifically need in your project individually.
Dave
On Jul 7, 2009, at 11:35 PM, William Hatch wrote:
WT
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more frequent
releases of updates to the frameworks.
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made wh
On 08/07/2009, at 10:03 PM, Miguel Arroz wrote:
Hi!
I did not comment on AppleInsider (and I'm not jlm808 :) ) but what
gets my pissed off about journalists (these, and others) is the fact
that they grab a few facts, and take stupid conclusions out of them.
While it annoys me too, I wou
Hi!
I did not comment on AppleInsider (and I'm not jlm808 :) ) but what
gets my pissed off about journalists (these, and others) is the fact
that they grab a few facts, and take stupid conclusions out of them.
Yes, eventually, Snow Leopard won't include WO (these things were
supposed
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more frequent
releases of updates to the frameworks.
And OS X Software Update won't mess with your production install
On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:21 AM, Johann Werner wrote:
Hi Dave,
this addition to _Entity.java seems very useful. Perhaps it should
be added to the standard templates? They would become more sort of
"use them and don't care" so perhaps file a jira.
Done. WOL-1035
the snippit of code from the
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied to
OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more frequent
releases of updates to the frameworks.
Dave
On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:51 AM, Paul Stringer wrote:
Wow doesn't happen often but WebObjects getting a mention in th
Wow doesn't happen often but WebObjects getting a mention in the Mac
press. It's remarking on the dropping of WebObjects deployment from
Snow Leopard Server (not like it matters WOInstaller does the job
fine). WOLips gets a mention too nice!. D.E. Dilger really seems to
like to give a menti
Hi Dave,
this addition to _Entity.java seems very useful. Perhaps it should be
added to the standard templates? They would become more sort of "use
them and don't care" so perhaps file a jira.
jw
Am 08.07.2009 um 01:00 schrieb David Avendasora:
On Jul 7, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Miguel Angel
Hi,
We are trying to migrate our application deployment environment from
WebObjects 5.2 to WebObjects 5.4.
In some of the WOComponents, we are making use of WOCheckBoxList and
WOCheckboxMatrix elements. In WO5.2, WOCheckBoxList is working fine and we
are able to view the check boxes. But in
68 matches
Mail list logo
