Just to throw our 2¢ in, we have an extremely large codebase that is very heavily invested in EOF, using it in several ways that dive deep into its bowels. ;-) Of course, we also use the WOF part of WO, and all of Wonder.
Regards, Mark > On Mar 15, 2019, at 5:51 AM, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is> wrote: > > Hi all. > In preparation for the coming WODay in Frankfurt, I'd love it if you'd be > open to having a discussion on the status and future of WO, so we can enter > the coming work prepared. > > I'd like to begin by sharing my own thoughts on the matter, based on my > current stack and experience. It's a rehash of something I posted to our > Slack yesterday, may sound revolutionary and will no doubt be controversial, > but I think some outside-the-box thinking is required at this time. This is > lengthy, sorry about that… > > -- > > In the past few years I've been working towards minimising the use and effect > of WO/Wonder on my stack, so when and if The Time comes, I and my customers > have a migration path forward. Among the things I've done is move from EOF to > Cayenne and from Ant to Maven (to make using 3rd party jars, including > Cayenne easier), both of which have turned out to have been very happy > decisions which I wholeheartedly recommend, regardless of anything else you > do. > > I love working with my WO/Cayenne stack, which is currently only "polluted" > by the following frameworks: > > -- WO: > * JavaFoundation (indirectly through WO, I never use foundation classes in my > code unless absolutely required by WO) > * JavaWebObjects > > -- Wonder (I consider Wonder "polluted" since it depends on WO/EOF) > * ERExtensions (only the WO stuff, not the EOF stuff) > • Ajax > • WOOgnl (indirectly for parsing Wonder-style inline templates) > …and of course then there's the deployment stuff (JavaMonitor,wotaskd, > adaptors). > > Given this, here's my proposal for a way forward: > * We abandon EOF (and, in fact, any ORM—this is not meant to be a full stack > effort, initially at least) > * We re-implement JavaWebObjects as required (and the absolutely necessary > parts of JavaFoundation, such as KVC and NSBundle) as a single framework > * We separate the necessary WO stuff from the EOF/D2W stuff in Wonder (as > well as other totally unrelated things like mail sending frameworks, other > utility frameworks and "useful applications") and include it in our > re-implementation > * We create a fork of WOLips that knows how to live within the New Universe > * We rule the world > > Ideally, what we end with is Just a Web Framework™ with IDE integration (and > nothing else) that can serve as a basis for future development. While > re-implementing WO may sound like a huge undertaking, I actually think it's > smaller than rewriting all of my solutions that depend on it. This probably > applies to more of you. > > Now, looking at my own stack I know this proposal might sound a bit > self-serving, but I'd like to hear other opinions. I believe it's a realistic > way forward with (comparatively) minimal development effort. Turns out that > WOF itself is the only part of the WO/Wonder stack that I really just don't > want to live without. > > This is something I'd like to do, and if anyone likes the idea and is willing > to participate, I'm confident we can make this work! Doing stuff alone sucks. > > Cheers, > - hugi > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mark.morris%40experian.com > > This email sent to mark.mor...@experian.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
