Re: [OT] WebObjects [Was: Re: separating C from V in MVC]
> Not quite sure what you mean here. The general WO request-response loop is > 1 Process request > 2 Perform action > 3 Return response > > Step 3 is entirely dependent on the previous two, just like any > mod_perl/CGI/php app. The introductory documentation makes it look each URL is tied to a specific HTML template. It may just be a problem with that documentation though. > I think the most perfect web > development env would be a WO-style framework build on top of mod_perl You can assemble various parts of it from CPAN. Most of the perl O/R frameworks are not as ambitious as EOF, but Tangram is trying pretty hard. The templating tools available for perl are as good as the ones in WO. Using those with one of the MVC frameworks discussed here gets you quite a bit. The main thing you don't get is GUI tools, which there doesn't seem to be much demand for from the mod_perl community. - Perrin
Re: [OT] WebObjects [Was: Re: separating C from V in MVC]
Perrin &al > > Once you use it, everything else > > sucks. There are no exceptions. > That's kind of a rude statement to make on this list, where all of these > people are offering free software and support to you. Ah, you're right; I actually never meant that as a slight against things mod_perl; I use mod_perl and I support it fervently. But mod_perl & WO are at two different places in the stack; WO is a rich framework, mod_perl is an all-powerful skeleton on which we *build* our frameworks. > It's been a few years since I last evaluated WebObjects, but it > certainly didn't seem like a panacea. It had a number of interesing > ideas behind it, but its insistence on trying to hide all the details of > the browser interaction made some simple things very hard, especially > since it tried to keep all of the state information server-side. The > problems it had with back buttons and multiple browser windows come to > mind Might have been a problem a long time ago but it's certainly not now. WO supports both its own kind of steroid-enhanced session tracking, which does create problems with back-buttons if you don't use it properly, but it also supports regular mod_perl-style request/response cycles that are perfectly fine with back-button/multiple-window/bookmarking tasks. > It also seems to encourage design where browsers directly request > a view, rather than calling a controller which chooses a view depending > on the outcome of processing. That could be just a shortcoming of their > introductory documentation though. Not quite sure what you mean here. The general WO request-response loop is 1 Process request 2 Perform action 3 Return response Step 3 is entirely dependent on the previous two, just like any mod_perl/CGI/php app. WO completely forces division of your C & your V and gives you a huge hand in separating your M from either of those. Anyway, sorry if anyone was slighted; I think the most perfect web development env would be a WO-style framework build on top of mod_perl (because who wants to use Java? Jeez) Cheers Kyle Dawkins Central Park Software
Re: [OT] WebObjects [Was: Re: separating C from V in MVC]
> WO is amazing, no two ways about it. Once you use it, everything else > sucks. There are no exceptions. That's kind of a rude statement to make on this list, where all of these people are offering free software and support to you. It's been a few years since I last evaluated WebObjects, but it certainly didn't seem like a panacea. It had a number of interesing ideas behind it, but its insistence on trying to hide all the details of the browser interaction made some simple things very hard, especially since it tried to keep all of the state information server-side. The problems it had with back buttons and multiple browser windows come to mind. It also seems to encourage design where browsers directly request a view, rather than calling a controller which chooses a view depending on the outcome of processing. That could be just a shortcoming of their introductory documentation though. - Perrin
Re: [OT] WebObjects [Was: Re: separating C from V in MVC]
Drew is correct, EOF stands for "Enterprise Object Framework". However, it's not "part of" the WebObjects app server... it predates WO by a long time (I think it's about 9 or 10 years old) happens to come with WO but is completely separate from it. On Friday 14 June 2002 11:27, Drew Taylor wrote: > For those of you (like me) who didn't know what EOF is, it stands for > Enterprise Object Framework and is part of Apple's WebObjects app > server. Which has moved on to Java, and thus is OT. :-) But I've > heard many good things about WebObjects, so it's on my wish list of > technologies to investigate. WO is amazing, no two ways about it. Once you use it, everything else sucks. There are no exceptions. Kyle Dawkins Central Park Software
[OT] WebObjects [Was: Re: separating C from V in MVC]
At 10:59 AM 6/14/02 -0400, kyle dawkins wrote: >As for people claiming never to have seen an OR system that works, I >suggest you check out EOF from NeXT/Apple. For those of you (like me) who didn't know what EOF is, it stands for Enterprise Object Framework and is part of Apple's WebObjects app server. Which has moved on to Java, and thus is OT. :-) But I've heard many good things about WebObjects, so it's on my wish list of technologies to investigate. Drew == Drew Taylor | Freelance web development using http://www.drewtaylor.com/ | perl/mod_perl/MySQL/postgresql/DBI mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Email jobs at drewtaylor.com -- Speakeasy.net: A DSL provider with a clue. Sign up today. http://www.speakeasy.net/refer/29655 ==
