AI
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:03:57 PM
re WO v RoR
Very actively developed opensource frameworks that add new features to the base WebObjects frameworks continuously.
I didn't realize the development was this active. I thought Ruby's broad appeal might make it a bit more up-to-date in some respects.
I don't know the lingo in use within WebObjects, but lots of the benefit you mention seem to be objectives pursued and to varying degrees achieved by various Perl and Python and especially Ruby setups.
RoR definitely does not act as an application server: it depends on a web server to dish out the content, and you can pick the web server. And the database. Lots of native frameworks for creating PDF, preparing charts, etc. The difference, I suppose is that it's new. On the other hand it's also very actively developed, and well-supported by MacOS X. Apple benefits in either direction, though of course the WO solution both advertises its wares and ensures demand for the hardware on which it's licensed for deployment.
One thing I don't understand really is the amount of WO actually in use in the wild.
Also: I don't know if WO has gone back to ObjC, as Apple seems to have given up on the Cocoa-ObjC bridge, but by then Apple had made WO a Java product. Anyone know the score here?
What I read about WO years ago made me excited about it, and the possibility it would help Apple to attack web enterprise as a market. I have no idea how that's worked, as I have no idea what WO's penetration is, though I have no doubt the tech still rocks. What I don't know is to what extent it's still ahead of competition. With Leopard apparently supporting RoR out of the box, Apple isn't trying to steer customers, it's enabling them, which is cool.
After all, by that time Apple's already got their money
Take care,
--Tex.
Very actively developed opensource frameworks that add new features to the base WebObjects frameworks continuously.
I didn't realize the development was this active. I thought Ruby's broad appeal might make it a bit more up-to-date in some respects.
I don't know the lingo in use within WebObjects, but lots of the benefit you mention seem to be objectives pursued and to varying degrees achieved by various Perl and Python and especially Ruby setups.
RoR definitely does not act as an application server: it depends on a web server to dish out the content, and you can pick the web server. And the database. Lots of native frameworks for creating PDF, preparing charts, etc. The difference, I suppose is that it's new. On the other hand it's also very actively developed, and well-supported by MacOS X. Apple benefits in either direction, though of course the WO solution both advertises its wares and ensures demand for the hardware on which it's licensed for deployment.
One thing I don't understand really is the amount of WO actually in use in the wild.
Also: I don't know if WO has gone back to ObjC, as Apple seems to have given up on the Cocoa-ObjC bridge, but by then Apple had made WO a Java product. Anyone know the score here?
What I read about WO years ago made me excited about it, and the possibility it would help Apple to attack web enterprise as a market. I have no idea how that's worked, as I have no idea what WO's penetration is, though I have no doubt the tech still rocks. What I don't know is to what extent it's still ahead of competition. With Leopard apparently supporting RoR out of the box, Apple isn't trying to steer customers, it's enabling them, which is cool.
After all, by that time Apple's already got their money
Take care,
--Tex.
