My humble opinion,
All WO technology, should be integrated into something that I would
like to call:
/web
"slash web"
David Sánchez
On Sep 6, 2006, at 8:26 PM, James Cicenia wrote:
WOOD
Web Objects Oriented Development
lol
On Sep 6, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Ricardo Strausz wrote:
dire
that, and I do not know how the objectstyle.org website operates, so
I am not completely sure what I can do to help.
I would really love to help any way I can to improve WO community and
documents.
David Sanchez
P.S. One of the interesting and amusing things I found with that
paper is
Thank you,
I will try it as soon as I can,
David Sanchez
On Aug 28, 2006, at 4:20 PM, David Avendasora wrote:
David,
I have not yet tried to create a Java Client (Direct or Non-direct)
from scratch in WOLips, but it is very easy to create one in XCode
and migrate it to Eclipse/WOLips
On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Paul Lynch wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006, at 18:29, David Sanchez wrote:
I think you are forgetting .NET which has wonderful tools and it
is tightly integrated with SQL Server and Windows 2000.
The latter is a good reason not to use it. And yet, I am being
biased
On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Aug 28, 2006, at 10:32 AM, David Sanchez wrote:
Hallo!
It is also well-known that Apple does not want to open source WO.
But, if Apple does not plan to open WO, IT HAS to re-write
documentation.
No, it doesn't. Please stop making
programmers can die, jump to other
platform or quit programming.
So, if that's the case, Apple strategy for WO is just let it die.
David Sanchez
I think there is close to zero (very close to zero ;-) chance that
Apple will rewrite any of the WebObjects documentation to include the
open s
Hello!
I think you are forgetting .NET which has wonderful tools and it is
tightly integrated with SQL Server and Windows 2000.
WO+Tiger can compete against .NET+Windows 2000, it is cheaper,
faster, easier and more elegant.
But the tools in .NET are completely integrated, very fast and
Thank you,
Finding out that would have been almost impossible by myself.
David Sanchez
On Aug 28, 2006, at 9:35 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
David,
Look in this file /System/Library/Frameworks/
JavaWebObjects.framework/Resources/License.key
Cliff from Apple (he shows up on the list
my commitment: Once I can get my issue with D2JC
figured out (see awakeFromInsertion thread), I will begin re-
implementing the exercises from WO Desktop Applications examples
using WOlips and put them on the Wiki.
Hello!
That would be REALLY excellent for new comers. I do n
hard to work under for a newbie as myself.
I'd be happy to help in anyway I can if you have questions on Java
Client. There's very few of us out there using it.
On Aug 26, 2006, at 12:33 PM, David Sanchez wrote:
Where? All the docs I have read are updated to 5.3.somethin
Hi!
Starting with my early sessions with WOLips, I have not found the
option: create a "Direct to Java Client Application (Three Tier)".
I have only found WOApplication, Direct To Web Application.
Is it possible to do it on WOLips?
Dav
Hello David and everyone again,
Four people is too small.
ThinkSecret is a rumor site, they could have this number or the entire
rumor about WebObjects wrong.
AppleInsider posted a similar rumor one year ago and nothing happened
back then...
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=113
Well, it is good to know, at least I am not the only one who has
these love/hate relationship with Apple.
Thank you for the welcome,
I read also the post. Very funny indeed.
David Sanchez
David,
[Disclaimer: Following is a fun weekend rant, skip it if you are not
in the mood for it]
Of
The tools will be here for a while. What I recommend is, do some
pet-project with Apple tools. After you gain some familiarity and
understand the basic concepts, fully move to WOLips. For example, I
use WOLips but I still use the old WO Builder and EOModeler. You
have time to make a smo
On Aug 26, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Paul Lynch wrote:
On 26 Aug 2006, at 16:04, David Sanchez wrote:
On Aug 26, 2006, at 6:31 AM, Paul Lynch wrote:
On 26 Aug 2006, at 09:19, David Sanchez wrote:
Looking into J2EE, Cayenne/Tapestry can compete with WO?
No. Integration in a framework and the
On Aug 26, 2006, at 6:31 AM, Paul Lynch wrote:
On 26 Aug 2006, at 09:19, David Sanchez wrote:
Looking into J2EE, Cayenne/Tapestry can compete with WO?
No. Integration in a framework and the quality of its tools count
for a lot (and are usually undercredited).
I do not understand this
On Aug 26, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote:
Hi!
On 2006/08/26, at 09:12, David Sanchez wrote:
Of course they do. But for how long?
Besides, any time Apple can just stop them to work with no prior
notice. Also, it means there is no bug fixing, no support and no
updated
th area under the present circumstances, no matter what features they add. Wonderful tool, bad prospects. Better to look at Ruby on Rails if you're a technology lover or j2ee if you're a practical guy. Jim On Aug 25, 2006, at 9:26 PM, David Sanchez wrote: Hi! I am new to WebObjects and new in the
On Aug 25, 2006, at 11:55 PM, Dustin Withers wrote:
Hello! :)
I think I got the worse time to learn WebObjects. All the
tutorials in the Apple Web Site are referring to deprecated apps
like EOModeler, and most of the books out there talk about them too.
The tools are deprecated but you c
w the new tools first and then deprecate the old ones?
Thank you,
David Sanchez
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:37:18 -0300
From: Karl Gretton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from
WWDC'06
To: webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com
Mes
20 matches
Mail list logo
