+1 > On 15 Mar 2019, at 15:42, Dennis Scheffer <den...@selbstdenker.ag> wrote: > > Hi Hugi, > > I think your ideas are great and I would love to participate. I agree that > some sort of rewrite of the WebObjects core is inevitable sooner or later. > Even at this point as far as I know certain web technologies like websockets > or some of the new HTTP/2 feature are just not supported. If it were even > possible to implement these features on top of the existing WebObjects core, > it would probably require some "hacks". This makes everything just less > future-proof since I imagine the list of unsupported features will just get > longer over the years. > > I think more extensive modularization would be beneficial in other aspects, > as well. It would be pretty cool if we could separate the templating engine > from the webserver framework. That way we could use the engine for other > templating tasks and were also open to the possibility of switching to > another webserver framework if such would fit the respectively changing > circumstances better. > > I'm really curious to see how this whole idea will develop. :-) > > Cheers, > -- > Dennis Scheffer > > >> On 15. Mar 2019, at 11:51, Hugi Thordarson <h...@karlmenn.is >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto:Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com>) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/dennis%40selbstdenker.ag >> >> <https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/dennis%40selbstdenker.ag> >> >> This email sent to den...@selbstdenker.ag <mailto:den...@selbstdenker.ag> > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com > <mailto:Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com>) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/ginokris%40mac.com > <https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/ginokris%40mac.com> > > This email sent to ginok...@mac.com <mailto:ginok...@mac.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
