Cool! We haven't had one of these conversations around here for a long time. :-)
On 9/08/11 11:06 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
EOF supported inheritance better (again, Cayenne is improving in that area, too).
Well, interestingly the reasons why I moved my company away from WO some years ago was: * lack of EOF/WO developers (although Cayenne is not on top of everyone's resume either, it plays nicely with the J2EE world and other tools that everyone feels at home with. With EOF you tend to have to buy into the whole toolchain and some rather specialised knowledge.) * bugs in EOF inheritance (Cayenne has proven more robust for us in this area) * the desire to support open source * a fear that Apple might turn around and close down external use of WO. Apple has been historically very poor at communicating their plans for WO. This again was another reason to choose an open source library which could never be taken off the market. * restrictive licensing for EOF: Apple did not allow us to sell a product to a customers who would deploy it on a machine running Windows. This was about 6 years ago so I don't know if that has now changed. It has always amazed me how many very talented programmers work for Apple for free, building on top of a closed source library. Tim, David, Jo and everyone else listening: if you ever decide to look at porting some of your WO projects over to Cayenne (plus Spring/Tapestry/Click or whatever else), please don't hesitate to ask back here about how Cayenne can help you with that process. Yes, some things are different in Cayenne compared to EOF, but very many things will be familiar to you. We'd love to have your contributions not only to the Cayenne docs and code, but also ideas of what things are missing that would make your use of Cayenne more compelling. Regards Ari -- --------------------------> Aristedes Maniatis GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
