On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
> All anyone has to do is add your fork's remote, fetch the remote, checkout
> the feature branch (3 simple commands) and play with the feature or examine
> it. Any peer can easily do diff between your tree and master or integration
> to see
FWIW.
I just rebuild DynEd's web site. Certain components are static HTML others are
not. These are basic solutions nothing earth shattering (DynEd has other apps
that are, IMHO).
Support:
http://www.dyned.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/QandA.woa
Site Search:
http://www.dyned.com/cgi-
Hi Ken,
On 30/03/2012, at 7:39 PM, ISHIMOTO Ken wrote:
> There are two kind of new Contributor
>
> 1. Real wonder or plain WebObjects User, the make some changes and it's done.
> No way that is no big problem and I hope a lot of People will contribute in
> the Future.
> And of course make a For
Kieran,
It is not because I work to much or anything else. I really love and enjoy work
and that's fine for me.
I was trying to get together for two reasons.
1. To Contribute
2. To make my life easier, because if there is only one Version than I don't
have to maintenance always 2 big framewor
Ken,
One suggestion: just host your Wodka project on github so that the source is
available to all...
"WODka: A Wonder variant built for the Japanese market"
and if people want to port elements back,they can cherry-pick stuff they
want. again this puts responsibilities for work on people
It seems a core concept of smaller building blocks is being overlooked in
favour of the monolithic all-or-nothing-one-stop-shop.
Wonder, itself is a set of frameworks built ontop of other frameworks/jars.
There is no need for 'everything' to live inside Wonder.
There's this neat little feature
If you are making some big commit/feature that you are not really sure in your
own mind whether it will get kickback and you are done and want peer review,
there is nothing stopping you pushing that feature branch to your own fork,
copying the project github URL and sending an email to the maili
Johan and Ken,
Love to help with D2W components where possible. I have several of my own now
that ought to be added.
David
On 2012-03-29, at 10:16 AM, ISHIMOTO Ken wrote:
> It is not only the Problem that we won't share, but
>
>
>
It is not only the Problem that we won't share, but
For Comitter:
Create Framework, changes everything in other Frameworks that have to , commit,
done, Hero Mode.
For Non-Co
2012/3/29 Chuck Hill
> The sun set on WO a long time ago (well, assuming you think that it ever
> really shined on WO). For new projects, WebObjects and Wonder is still my
> choice until I find something _better_ not just newer. I am not moving to
> something newer and worse because WO is old
On Mar 28, 2012, at 1:38 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
> Le 2012-03-27 à 19:30, Mike Schrag a écrit :
>
> "I think we should use the funds to pay people to fix issues that the
> majority of users are having. The issues will be voted by the community
> and the most voted issues will b
No with two Rs
http://www.songsterr.com/
Impressive site.
On 2012-03-28, at 9:14 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
> Songsterr? Are you talking about this?
>
> http://songster.mowgligames.com/landing.php
>
> Regards Kieran
> ___
> Sent from my iPad.
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2012,
Songsterr? Are you talking about this?
http://songster.mowgligames.com/landing.php
Regards Kieran
___
Sent from my iPad.
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Denis Frolov wrote:
> We are extremely busy here with our own product (Songsterr)
___
On 29/03/2012, at 6:58 AM, Andrew Lindesay wrote:
> Hello John, Chuck, Pascal and Others;
>
> > I am not moving to something newer and worse because WO is old...
> ...
>> ...That means you continue to maintain your apps that use WO, you
>> find a new technology, and you write your new apps in som
Le 2012-03-28 à 17:24, Emmanuel Tote Dominguez Torres a écrit :
> about the book topic, wouldn't it be easier to "upgrade" the old books with
> Xcode and wobuilder examples to actual examples with wonder, most of the
> topics are still valid starting points but when you are a begginer it's
> f
about the book topic, wouldn't it be easier to "upgrade" the old books with
Xcode and wobuilder examples to actual examples with wonder, most of the
topics are still valid starting points but when you are a begginer it's
frustrating to be reading the books and lack to ability to do the examples
bec
On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:44 AM, Q wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 7:30 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>> I really don't think things are stagnant because of the lack of money.
>> They're stagnant because the remaining people in the community don't care
>> enough to contribute. I don't buy any of the "I don't k
There is a lot of wisdom in what both David and Chuck say. D2W is bar-none the
biggest productivity improvement I have seen in my career. I don't expect to
see it replicated anywhere else, anytime soon.
David
On 2012-03-28, at 8:45 AM, David LeBer wrote:
> FWIW, we totally agree. We've been l
I found this to be interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks
After taking a cursory look of what was out there it dawned on me how much I
was getting from WOLips/WOnder that I had taken for granted.
Johnny Miller
Kahalawai Media Corp.
www.kahalawai.com
Hello John, Chuck, Pascal and Others;
> I am not moving to something newer and worse because WO is old...
...
...That means you continue to maintain your apps that use WO, you
find a new technology, and you write your new apps in something else.
You may be interested to take a look at;
+1
I still think that for a new project it's wise to use WO. Even if it's old
stuff ;) because of Wonder and because of what you can do really quickly! I
even looked at other frameworks out there just to be fair and nothing comes
even close!
Maybe tapestry+cayenne?
Anyway, for me it's WO for the f
+1
I am now and in the future will use WO fro all my Projects. I am tired to learn
new stuff.
I can make and fix with WO & Wonder everything I need, and that's OK.
Ken
On 2012/03/28, at 17:34, Chuck Hill wrote:
> The sun set on WO a long time ago (well, assuming you think that it ever
> re
+1
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
> The sun set on WO a long time ago (well, assuming you think that it ever
> really shined on WO). For new projects, WebObjects and Wonder is still my
> choice until I find something _better_ not just newer. I am not moving to
> something ne
I agree. All my apps were just WO. Then late last year I decided to go Wonder.
First with some new apps and then to rewrite this beast.
OMG What an amazing suite of tools! Especially with the REST work to support my
iOS apps. And now back to my beast... granted
i probably didn't do things right
Seriously guys. What can you bring to WOWDC from 1996? Thats when I first
published a WO App. What do we have? What is the same?
WO+D2W+WONDER is fscking unbelievable. Nothing compares. I have enterprise
level apps from 2003 that run today just as they ran 9 years ago.
So its all about th
FWIW, we totally agree. We've been looking for years too. Nothing comes close
to WO+D2W. We see no reason to drop something that works for nebulous 'but it's
old' reasons.
--
David LeBer
Codeferous Software
On 2012-03-28, at 11:34 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
> The sun set on WO a long time ago (well
On 2012-03-28, at 5:44 AM, Q wrote:
>
> For me it has never been about getting payment, recognition, or privilege.
> The sole reason I have spent thousands of hours of my own time working on
> code for the sole purpose of giving it away is one of moral duty and respect
> for the people who did
The sun set on WO a long time ago (well, assuming you think that it ever really
shined on WO). For new projects, WebObjects and Wonder is still my choice
until I find something _better_ not just newer. I am not moving to something
newer and worse because WO is old (though I might move to some
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
> Le 2012-03-28 à 11:09, Denis Frolov a écrit :
>
>> I think Pascal is right. If we don't make WO attractive to new
>> developers, community will just slowly shrink and eventually die. And
>> I think it will die anyway even if we all start co
Le 2012-03-28 à 11:02, John Huss a écrit :
> Technologies come and go; there is a lifecycle for everything. That is a
> fundamental attribute of software development. The fact that WebObjects has
> endured for so long as a relevant and useful piece of technology is amazing.
> But like all t
Le 2012-03-28 à 11:09, Denis Frolov a écrit :
> I think Pascal is right. If we don't make WO attractive to new
> developers, community will just slowly shrink and eventually die. And
> I think it will die anyway even if we all start contributing new cool
> stuff. Cool tech is not enough to start
I think Pascal is right. If we don't make WO attractive to new
developers, community will just slowly shrink and eventually die. And
I think it will die anyway even if we all start contributing new cool
stuff. Cool tech is not enough to start getting traction. Arguably, we
already have good enough
Technologies come and go; there is a lifecycle for everything. That is a
fundamental attribute of software development. The fact that WebObjects
has endured for so long as a relevant and useful piece of technology is
amazing. But like all technologies, it can't last forever. The sun is
setting
Le 2012-03-28 à 08:44, Q a écrit :
>
> On 28/03/2012, at 9:38 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 2012-03-27 à 19:30, Mike Schrag a écrit :
>>
>> "I think we should use the funds to pay people to fix issues that the
>> majority of users are having. The issues will be voted by the com
Well for me... I was strictly a consumer until about two months ago. That was
when I found an actual bug in wonder, had to download all the source, break all
my deployments, and in general freak out.
However, now that I am past that barrier and have gotten a lot more experience
with git on anot
On 28/03/2012, at 9:38 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
> Le 2012-03-27 à 19:30, Mike Schrag a écrit :
>
> "I think we should use the funds to pay people to fix issues that the
> majority of users are having. The issues will be voted by the community
> and the most voted issues will bec
[Code formatting and syntax conversation deleted...]
Let's not get side-tracked. :-) Ted and Ken have told us in this thread that
(a) they have code to contribute, but (b) can't for various reasons. I think
we should sort that out. Ted's problem, at least, is purely technical and we
can hel
On 2012-03-28, at 11:23 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Farrukh Ijaz wrote:
>
>>> return contentDisposition != null && (contentDisposition.indexOf("inline")
>>> > -1 || contentDisposition.indexOf("attachment") > -1);
>>>
>>> Seriously, who can read that and make s
On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Farrukh Ijaz wrote:
>> return contentDisposition != null && (contentDisposition.indexOf("inline") >
>> -1 || contentDisposition.indexOf("attachment") > -1);
>>
>> Seriously, who can read that and make sense of it immediately?!
>
> This is programmers shorthand. The
On 2012-03-28, at 9:22 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Johann Werner wrote:
>
>> Perhaps now it is the time to define a mandatory Wonder code formatter all
>> commits have to use. I think that would make it easier for many committers
>> to send patches without wor
Hi Ken,
On 28/03/2012, at 4:36 PM, ISHIMOTO Ken wrote:
> It's not only time, it is really difficult for not Core User to make changes.
I think if that ever was true, then it's not any more. Fork Wonder, make
changes, test changes, commit changes, pull request. Is Git/GitHub the main
problem
Am 28.03.2012 um 08:25 schrieb ISHIMOTO Ken:
> There is in Eclipse Mechanic already a Formatter for WO.
Where do you find that formatter? I am using Eclipse Mechanic and didn't see a
new formatter pop up anywhere.
>
> Mike made it and some People already use it.
>
>
>
> On 2012/03/28, at 8
There is in Eclipse Mechanic already a Formatter for WO.
Mike made it and some People already use it.
On 2012/03/28, at 8:22, David Avendasora wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Johann Werner wrote:
>
>> Perhaps now it is the time to define a mandatory Wonder code formatter all
>> comm
On Mar 28, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Johann Werner wrote:
> Perhaps now it is the time to define a mandatory Wonder code formatter all
> commits have to use. I think that would make it easier for many committers to
> send patches without worrying about formatting – and it would improve the
> code read
Am 28.03.2012 um 08:06 schrieb ISHIMOTO Ken:
> It's not only time, it is really difficult for not Core User to make changes.
>
> If you not a Core Contributor,
>
> * nobody cares about your code,
> * if you say there is a Bug, nobody believes you
> ...
>
> I also work 365/year on wonder and ha
It's not only time, it is really difficult for not Core User to make changes.
If you not a Core Contributor,
* nobody cares about your code,
* if you say there is a Bug, nobody believes you
...
I also work 365/year on wonder and have many Frameworks now. Also it is funny
to see that Bugs that I
Hi,
On 28/03/2012, at 11:55 AM, Ted Archibald wrote:
> There's also a 4th reason: People like me who don't know git/github, and
> don't know how to integrate it into my workflow. I'd like to contribute
> more, but I need to spend a day or two figuring out how to get from here to
> there with
>
> Le 2012-03-27 à 19:30, Mike Schrag a écrit :
>
> "I think we should use the funds to pay people to fix issues that the
> majority of users are having. The issues will be voted by the
> community and the most voted issues will become the highest
> priorities."
Th
There's also a 4th reason: People like me who don't know git/github, and
don't know how to integrate it into my workflow. I'd like to contribute
more, but I need to spend a day or two figuring out how to get from here to
there without breaking my current workflow much. For instance I currently
h
+1
On 2012-03-27, at 4:30 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
"I think we should use the funds to pay people to fix issues that the
majority of users are having. The issues will be voted by the community
and the most voted issues will become the highest priorities."
>>>
>>> That is not how Wo
We'll survive.
Embrace the fact the community is small.
I submit that the strength of this community has always been the unique talent
and clear minded architecture that addressed some of the industry's most
sophisticated problems and it did this over a long period of time, up to and
includin
Le 2012-03-27 à 19:30, Mike Schrag a écrit :
"I think we should use the funds to pay people to fix issues that the
majority of users are having. The issues will be voted by the community
and the most voted issues will become the highest priorities."
>>>
>>>
>>> That is not how
>>> "I think we should use the funds to pay people to fix issues that the
>>> majority of users are having. The issues will be voted by the community and
>>> the most voted issues will become the highest priorities."
>>
>>
>> That is not how Wonder was created and now how I expect that it will
> ...
>
>> "Better integration between WO and iOS/Android can be a big selling point
>> and a way to get new people on board. Maybe we could build a system where
>> people can upload their CoreData model and we convert it to a EOModel and
>> generate a ERRest template."
>>
>> Someone also sugg
On 2012-03-27, at 12:53 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
> Ok, so this is the list of the most voted "in" ideas on Google Moderator. Any
> opinions on this?
>
> "We should write a Beginner Book that we can either give away for free and
> paid by the funds we raise by the membership fees and donations.
Ok, so this is the list of the most voted "in" ideas on Google Moderator. Any
opinions on this?
"We should write a Beginner Book that we can either give away for free and paid
by the funds we raise by the membership fees and donations. An alternative
would be to use the funds to paid in advance
56 matches
Mail list logo
