I think most of them blame WO for everything just because of either
the URLs (I saw a couple of stupid comments about how "bad", in
their opinion, WO URLs are) or because the Apple Online Store is
down when they release new or updated stuff... But it's funny to
see RoR/PHP people blame WO
I won't get into the whole which application server is best argument
but I did find this article interesting:
http://blog.dhananjaynene.com/2008/07/performance-comparison-c-java-python-ruby-jython-jruby-groovy/
On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Anjo Krank wrote:
Am 30.06.2009 um 19:58 schrieb
Am 30.06.2009 um 19:58 schrieb Pascal Robert:
Le 09-06-30 à 13:53, Mike Schrag a écrit :
"Even Apple have dodgy bits of PHP bolted on to their web site.http://is.gd/1i8tH
Still, got to be better than WebObjects, right?"
I find that kind of comments at least 3 times per week :-/
Most of th
Le 09-06-30 à 13:53, Mike Schrag a écrit :
"Even Apple have dodgy bits of PHP bolted on to their web site.http://is.gd/1i8tH
Still, got to be better than WebObjects, right?"
I find that kind of comments at least 3 times per week :-/
Most of the people on twitter don't even know what apps are
"Even Apple have dodgy bits of PHP bolted on to their web site.http://is.gd/1i8tH
Still, got to be better than WebObjects, right?"
I find that kind of comments at least 3 times per week :-/
Most of the people on twitter don't even know what apps are and aren't
WebObjects (nor what WebObjects
Have you done any performance testing on this? I would have question
about invoking OGNL for each binding.
Performance optimization is left as an exercise for the reader :)
It's definitely more expensive than a straight binding, no doubt. We
do the same caching for class KVC as for instance
Le 09-06-30 à 13:25, Mr. Pierre Frisch a écrit :
Mike,
Have you done any performance testing on this? I would have question
about invoking OGNL for each binding. I am not saying this is bad
just that the core WO is made to be very efficient and that pose
some constrains on what we can do
Mike,
Have you done any performance testing on this? I would have question
about invoking OGNL for each binding. I am not saying this is bad just
that the core WO is made to be very efficient and that pose some
constrains on what we can do. I know that RoR has some very nice
feature but i
This requires an association factory registered per function, though,
right? Part of the niceness of helpers is how they are registered and
resolved ...
For instance, I can just create PersonHelper, and somePerson|
displayName will automatically look for PersonHelper and call
displayName o
Mike there is only one space difference:
or
Cheers
Pierre
--
Pierre Frisch
pie...@apple.com
On Jun 29, 2009, at 15:46, Mike Schrag wrote:
I suppose we just need to integrate them as association and add
them to the association factory. This is trivial to do.
yeah, i'm pretty sure 5.4's pa
Hello Mike / Pierre;
Are you proposing this change for the core WebObjects frameworks or
as an additional framework (eg; Wonder)?
At a minimum, it would be a custom association factory in Wonder ...
The capability itself, though, is really cool, and I think it would be
generally useful to p
Hello Mike / Pierre;
Are you proposing this change for the core WebObjects frameworks or as
an additional framework (eg; Wonder)?
cheers.
I suppose we just need to integrate them as association and add them
to the association factory. This is trivial to do.
___
Andrew Lindesay
www.lindes
I suppose we just need to integrate them as association and add them
to the association factory. This is trivial to do.
yeah, i'm pretty sure 5.4's parser can do it with a custom factory,
but I'm concerned about how much typing it will require to actually
use it ... helpers are cool because i
I suppose we just need to integrate them as association and add them
to the association factory. This is trivial to do.
Pierre
--
Pierre Frisch
pie...@apple.com
On Jun 29, 2009, at 10:37, Mike Schrag wrote:
I didn't know helper functions.
They are fantastic!
... and yeah, I love these and u
On Jun 29, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
* though not technically a parser feature, I think our if/else
syntax makes more logical sense -- this is a total religious
debate though
For the record, Mike is wrong on this one. The WOML syntax is
correct.
I think it's fairly obviously t
* though not technically a parser feature, I think our if/else
syntax makes more logical sense -- this is a total religious
debate though
For the record, Mike is wrong on this one. The WOML syntax is
correct.
I think it's fairly obviously that Drew and I are going to require
counseling to
On Jun 29, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
* though not technically a parser feature, I think our if/else
syntax makes more logical sense -- this is a total religious
debate though
For the record, Mike is wrong on this one. The WOML syntax is
correct.
I think it's fairly obviously
* though not technically a parser feature, I think our if/else
syntax makes more logical sense -- this is a total religious debate
though
For the record, Mike is wrong on this one. The WOML syntax is
correct.
I think it's fairly obviously that Drew and I are going to require
counseling t
* though not technically a parser feature, I think our if/else
syntax makes more logical sense -- this is a total religious debate
though
For the record, Mike is wrong on this one. The WOML syntax is correct.
- Drew
---
Drew Davidson
___
Do not
The highlight should be very very very useful :-)
Thanks
I also have some "helper" funtions, but they are not implemented in
the ognl helper way ( I think i will port to ognl )
:-)
On 29/giu/09, at 19:33, Mike Schrag wrote:
are just examples, or they are implementer in WOOGNL ?
these are
I didn't know helper functions.
They are fantastic!
... and yeah, I love these and use them a lot, but i was going to talk
to drew about what would be required to support them in the new parser.
ms
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They wi
are just examples, or they are implementer in WOOGNL ?
these are in our internal frameworks ... we actually have a LOT of
these. I should put them in a framework or something.
ms ___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webo
Hi MikeI didn't know helper functions.They are fantastic!I'm reading at: http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WOL/WOOGNL+Helper+FunctionsNow, the examples...Other handy uses of helpers that we have in our own code:StringHelper.sanitize(String str) – remove dangerous HTML and _javascript_
* technically mixed wod/inline isn't a limitation of their parser, but
it's a practical limitation of the way it's loaded ... so I'll list it
in the pro column for woognl
* helper functions = pro -- it can be done with their association
factory, but at a syntactic sacrifice, i think
* though
Just a question...
The pro/cons using WOOGNL instead WO 5.4 inline bindings ?
1) mixed inline and wod
2) ...?
n) ... ?
On 29/giu/09, at 13:49, Mike Schrag wrote:
I sent all my examples from WOWODC to Mike Schrag after the
presentation; hopefully he could put them someplace where people
I sent all my examples from WOWODC to Mike Schrag after the
presentation; hopefully he could put them someplace where people can
get them.
btw ... Drew's examples will be part of the WOWODC video release.
ms
___
Do not post admin requests to the li
Johan,
That won't work. The [] must be the first and last parts of the
quoted entry, like
a link
One solution to this is to use the ognl: scheme (not part of the
default WO5.4 but I have it as an example) and concat yourself:
height="82" border="0"/>
I sent all my examples from
On 17 jun 2009, at 15:05, Q wrote:
Make sure your WOD file is empty if you're using WO54 inline
bindings. Unlike WOOgnl, WO54 doesn't let you mix WOD and inline
entries in the same component. If your wod isn't empty then it will
not parse the inline bindings.
Thanks! That solved it.
Is there a pref in WOLips to use the 54 style parsing?
David
On 17-Jun-09, at 5:52 AM, Johan Henselmans wrote:
On 17 jun 2009, at 13:48, Mike Schrag wrote:
Your email said "using latest wonder/WOOGNL" -- this replaces the
template parser with the one in WOOGNL. If you want to use the 5.4
I'm thinking we'll just add support in WOOGNL for [] syntax as well as
that escaping syntax, so hopefully it will be easier for things to mix.
ms
On Jun 17, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Johan Henselmans wrote:
On 17 jun 2009, at 13:48, Mike Schrag wrote:
Your email said "using latest wonder/WOOGNL" -
Make sure your WOD file is empty if you're using WO54 inline bindings.
Unlike WOOgnl, WO54 doesn't let you mix WOD and inline entries in the
same component. If your wod isn't empty then it will not parse the
inline bindings.
On 17/06/2009, at 10:52 PM, Johan Henselmans wrote:
On 17 jun
On 17 jun 2009, at 13:48, Mike Schrag wrote:
Your email said "using latest wonder/WOOGNL" -- this replaces the
template parser with the one in WOOGNL. If you want to use the 5.4
one, you need to remove WOOGNL.
ms
Right, removed WOOGNL Framework from the build path, but now my nifty
Ah... I see. Thanks Mike.
Your email said "using latest wonder/WOOGNL" -- this replaces the
template parser with the one in WOOGNL. If you want to use the 5.4
one, you need to remove WOOGNL.
___
Andrew Lindesay
www.lindesay.co.nz
___
Do not
Your email said "using latest wonder/WOOGNL" -- this replaces the
template parser with the one in WOOGNL. If you want to use the 5.4
one, you need to remove WOOGNL.
ms
On Jun 17, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Johan Henselmans wrote:
On 17 jun 2009, at 13:13, Andrew Lindesay wrote:
Hello Johan;
@
Hello Johan;
That's odd as I used the new WO 5.4 template format in an application
last week...
...and it seems to work fine...
...
...
Regards;
@]"/>
...
I just tried. The output was:
___
Andrew Lindesay
www.lindesay.co.n
On 17 jun 2009, at 13:13, Andrew Lindesay wrote:
Hello Johan;
@]"/>
Are you using the WO 5.4 new template format? I have just started
using the new format myself and think it is great. I think you can
just do this;
cheers.
___
Andrew Lindesay
www.lindesay.co.nz
I just
Hello Johan;
@]"/>
Are you using the WO 5.4 new template format? I have just started
using the new format myself and think it is great. I think you can
just do this;
cheers.
___
Andrew Lindesay
www.lindesay.co.nz
___
Do not post a
I am trying to get an anchor to a specific part of a webpage.
My attempt so far:
@]"/>
which results in an error message that the '<' and the '>' must be
escaped.
I understood that the whole idea of this [@ @] syntax was that it
should be escaped automatically?
Any suggestions?
(usi
38 matches
Mail list logo
