Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
That is an interesting approach. I think I like that! Thanks for posting this. Chuck On 2011-09-29, at 11:54 AM, Marius Soutier wrote: > As a matter of fact, it's based on DOM classes and ids. > > For example, you can fill a paragraph with content like this in your code: > > (html/deftemplate index "tutorial/template1.html" > [ctxt] > [:p#message] (html/content (:message ctxt))) > > deftemplate is a macro that creates a template called "index". It creates a > function that is applied when the matching route is called (this is defined > in conjunction with another library, Ring, which is inspired by Ruby's > Sinatra). It loads the file "tutorial/template1.html", and matches each "p" > tag with the id "message". Finally, a function is applied that fills the > paragraph with the content from the ctxt parameter with the key :message (the > colon marks a symbol, just like Ruby). > > I have copied this from a tutorial. If you want to know more, check it out: > https://github.com/swannodette/enlive-tutorial > > > On 29.09.2011, at 19:00, Chuck Hill wrote: > >> >> On 2011-09-29, at 1:01 AM, Marius Soutier wrote: >> >>> The Clojure Enlive library allows you to create code-free static HTML and >>> replace the contents from Clojure dynamically by applying functions to >>> CSS-like selectors. I think I like that approach best so far. >> >> That sounds like an interesting approach. Can you post a small example? >> Does the code need to changed if signifiant change are made to the layout or >> can you use things like the HTML ID? >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> -- >> Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development >> >> Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall >> knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. >> http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
As a matter of fact, it's based on DOM classes and ids. For example, you can fill a paragraph with content like this in your code: (html/deftemplate index "tutorial/template1.html" [ctxt] [:p#message] (html/content (:message ctxt))) deftemplate is a macro that creates a template called "index". It creates a function that is applied when the matching route is called (this is defined in conjunction with another library, Ring, which is inspired by Ruby's Sinatra). It loads the file "tutorial/template1.html", and matches each "p" tag with the id "message". Finally, a function is applied that fills the paragraph with the content from the ctxt parameter with the key :message (the colon marks a symbol, just like Ruby). I have copied this from a tutorial. If you want to know more, check it out: https://github.com/swannodette/enlive-tutorial On 29.09.2011, at 19:00, Chuck Hill wrote: > > On 2011-09-29, at 1:01 AM, Marius Soutier wrote: > >> The Clojure Enlive library allows you to create code-free static HTML and >> replace the contents from Clojure dynamically by applying functions to >> CSS-like selectors. I think I like that approach best so far. > > That sounds like an interesting approach. Can you post a small example? > Does the code need to changed if signifiant change are made to the layout or > can you use things like the HTML ID? > > > Chuck > > > -- > Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development > > Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall > knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. > http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects > > > > > > > ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
On 2011-09-29, at 1:01 AM, Marius Soutier wrote: > The Clojure Enlive library allows you to create code-free static HTML and > replace the contents from Clojure dynamically by applying functions to > CSS-like selectors. I think I like that approach best so far. That sounds like an interesting approach. Can you post a small example? Does the code need to changed if signifiant change are made to the layout or can you use things like the HTML ID? Chuck -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hi Chuck, Simon, and all WOrriors, I certainly understand your concerns and they are valid. WO is already a very expressive framework and you have a work process that simply does what you need. You are agile and get things accomplished. You don't have a need to try something new. I also understand that if you were to try this there would be major growing pains because your workflow currently uses a raw .html file with little webobjects tags you ask the UI people to ignore. I had the same concerns a few years ago but threw concern to the wind for non-serious projects so I could give it the benefit of the doubt. For me it was enough to see some smart discussions on their equivalent of WOCommunity and see killer apps come to market like "DabbleDB." I took the leap of faith and can now visualize it better. To be honest my very first impression was that this was a "cop-out" design decision. I really thought they did things this way to obviate the need of creating a template system. It wasn't until really trying it out that I could see how wrong that assumption was. This is no simple high school project framework, it's a well laid out approach. You are right Simon, if the HTML being output does not have enough syntactic sugar as in http://www.csszengarden.com/ then the UI people will be nagging the programmers. It will cause issues. But fairly quickly I would think programmers will learn what is necessary and overall flow will be improved. Usually it is not "id" tags but classes and nested spans / div tags that are necessary. The following two posts are pretty succinct and illustrate this novel approach eloquently. http://onsmalltalk.com/page-templates-and-seaside http://onsmalltalk.com/ajax-how-to-build-cascading-dialogs-in-seaside The second post is particularly interesting as it shows how Ajax is very sensibly added to your application. He says he didn't do any "javascript" and it's true that he himself did not but the extra expression in the web framework did it for him. Just like EOF creates SQL for you or even Mike's WO Ajax framework can automatically observe a field and update a part of the screen without you writing javascript directly. Blur your eyes and try to see the difference using a new Webobject tag with various bindings for an AjaxObserveField versus this method of accomplishing the same goal. It is eye opening. -- Aaron Simon wrote on 09/29/2011 03:28:05 AM: > From: Simon > To: Chuck Hill > Cc: arosenzw...@clinworx.com, WebObjects Mailing List d...@lists.apple.com> > Date: 09/29/2011 03:28 AM > Subject: Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) > > >> renderContentOn: html > >> > >> html table: [ > >> html > >>tableRow: [ > >> html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]; > >>tableRow: [ > >> html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]]. > >> > >> Look foreign? Perhaps but it's worth getting your feet wet and > kicking these ideas around. I've seen many things and this is the > first set of tools and processes that make me feel good. Like it is > equivalent and perhaps better than WO. It's brain dead easy to > install and there are a number of tutorials out there. > > > > OK, I see what you are talking about now. I am not sure if that > is a win for me. I have this designer that I often work with and he > is able to take an Eclipse project and edit the .HTML files to make > design changes. He does not touch the WOD or the Java. This has > been working pretty well for us. Switching to Seaside would mean > that we would have to take the initial designs, convert them into > code, and have the developers maintain them through the inevitable > changes. I'd have to see how much time the rest of it would save me. > > totally agree. this is not a plus for us either. our UI people play > with html (we don't do wod's, 100% inline bindings), and our java > people play with Java. > > the thought that our java team would have the UI team on their backs > all day saying "er, can you change that , and mess > you're pumping out for a list please (like i told you last time)" > fills me with fear! > > even if you keep your UI people to tidy up with css, surely they are > going to be nagging java engineers to get the correct id's and classes > pegged to the html the java code is pumping out ? it seems this is > only a benefit if your java people actually look after the whole UI > piece as well - and i've yet to find a java engineer that has style. > no offence intended :-) > > Simon ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
On 29/09/2011, at 6:01 PM, Marius Soutier wrote: > The Clojure Enlive library allows you to create code-free static HTML and > replace the contents from Clojure dynamically by applying functions to > CSS-like selectors. I think I like that approach best so far. Liftweb does the same. Display code is kept clean and valid. Lachlan Deck lachlan.d...@gmail.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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
The Clojure Enlive library allows you to create code-free static HTML and replace the contents from Clojure dynamically by applying functions to CSS-like selectors. I think I like that approach best so far. On 29.09.2011, at 09:28, Simon wrote: >>> renderContentOn: html >>> >>> html table: [ >>> html >>>tableRow: [ >>> html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]; >>>tableRow: [ >>> html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]]. >>> >>> Look foreign? Perhaps but it's worth getting your feet wet and kicking >>> these ideas around. I've seen many things and this is the first set of >>> tools and processes that make me feel good. Like it is equivalent and >>> perhaps better than WO. It's brain dead easy to install and there are a >>> number of tutorials out there. >> >> OK, I see what you are talking about now. I am not sure if that is a win >> for me. I have this designer that I often work with and he is able to take >> an Eclipse project and edit the .HTML files to make design changes. He does >> not touch the WOD or the Java. This has been working pretty well for us. >> Switching to Seaside would mean that we would have to take the initial >> designs, convert them into code, and have the developers maintain them >> through the inevitable changes. I'd have to see how much time the rest of >> it would save me. > > totally agree. this is not a plus for us either. our UI people play > with html (we don't do wod's, 100% inline bindings), and our java > people play with Java. > > the thought that our java team would have the UI team on their backs > all day saying "er, can you change that , and mess > you're pumping out for a list please (like i told you last time)" > fills me with fear! > > even if you keep your UI people to tidy up with css, surely they are > going to be nagging java engineers to get the correct id's and classes > pegged to the html the java code is pumping out ? it seems this is > only a benefit if your java people actually look after the whole UI > piece as well - and i've yet to find a java engineer that has style. > no offence intended :-) > > Simon > ___ > 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: > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/m.soutier%40starhealthcare.info > > This email sent to m.sout...@starhealthcare.info ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
>> renderContentOn: html >> >> html table: [ >> html >> tableRow: [ >> html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]; >> tableRow: [ >> html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]]. >> >> Look foreign? Perhaps but it's worth getting your feet wet and kicking these >> ideas around. I've seen many things and this is the first set of tools and >> processes that make me feel good. Like it is equivalent and perhaps better >> than WO. It's brain dead easy to install and there are a number of tutorials >> out there. > > OK, I see what you are talking about now. I am not sure if that is a win for > me. I have this designer that I often work with and he is able to take an > Eclipse project and edit the .HTML files to make design changes. He does not > touch the WOD or the Java. This has been working pretty well for us. > Switching to Seaside would mean that we would have to take the initial > designs, convert them into code, and have the developers maintain them > through the inevitable changes. I'd have to see how much time the rest of it > would save me. totally agree. this is not a plus for us either. our UI people play with html (we don't do wod's, 100% inline bindings), and our java people play with Java. the thought that our java team would have the UI team on their backs all day saying "er, can you change that , and mess you're pumping out for a list please (like i told you last time)" fills me with fear! even if you keep your UI people to tidy up with css, surely they are going to be nagging java engineers to get the correct id's and classes pegged to the html the java code is pumping out ? it seems this is only a benefit if your java people actually look after the whole UI piece as well - and i've yet to find a java engineer that has style. no offence intended :-) Simon ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
On 2011-09-28, at 9:38 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > I can feel your gears turning. That's a good thing! > > 1) PHP is nothing but a template file (with embedded programming) > > 2) WO has a template file, a programming file, and it also has "in-line" > binding which I've never been a fan of. Then there is the OGNL too... I'm not a fan of inline either, but I can see the attraction. > 3) Seaside is nothing but programming logic. > > So PHP is on one side and Seaside is on the other. WO is in the middle. > > We all can agree that the PHP, JSP, etc. way is a nightmare. You can make > good software but you have to work harder. > > WO way is better. For many years I really liked the way the .html / .wod was > nothing but presentation and bindings. OGNL is cool for quick and dirty but > it didn't feel right to me being too cluttered like the PHP way and hard to > debug. Inline bindings also clutter the HTML file and never resonated with me > either. Maybe... perhaps its cool for a WOString with a single value but > anything other than that... I'd rather someone use the .wod file. The Apple > way was insane, you had to do all inline bindings or none. The WOnder way is > best, able to mix the two. > > In WO there is the minor hassle of finding the line in HTML that matches up > with the .wod file. Using WOlips this is easy because it finds it for you and > jumps you right there to synchronize the two files in a split view. One thing > WOLips can't do is refactor that code. Only Java code is refactorable. You > also have to be extremely astute that you output correct and balanced HTML Well, WOLips does markup incorrectly nested HTML. So if you don't ignore that (and don't do crazy stuff like tags split across components), it is not too hard to at least ensure balanced HTML. > Seaside way is best. By using a living language, everything is immediate, you > don't feel the urge to cheat like with OGNL. By removing the template file > entirely and using objects you get so many benefits. > > 1) No extra files to coordinate. > > 2) no HTML syntax problems. > > 3) you can refactor ALL of your code, not just the business logic. > > 4) you can still partition your presentation logic - but instead of putting > it in a different file you put it in a method. > > 5) did I mention everything is alive? There isn't even a source code file to > deal with. No compiling, no interpreting static files, no need for an add-on > like JavaRebel. In Eclipse you can query for methods given part of a name you > remember. In Smalltalk you can query for methods that take such and such > parameters and evoke a certain value, you don't even have to know the method > name. Smalltalk will immediately give you a handful of methods that do > "greatest common denominator" for example. "Living" versus "Living Dead" > there is a difference but I digress. That was always one of the attractions of the environment for me. It is such a different way of looking at it. > Here is an example of how presentation is rendered in Seaside. Bare in mind > that "renderContentOn" is akin to "appendToResponse". And that "html" is an > object which gets passed into the method that is a bit like a WOContext and a > String buffer rolled into one. In this example it is going to render an HTML > table with table rows and table data cells: > > renderContentOn: html > > html table: [ > html >tableRow: [ > html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]; >tableRow: [ > html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]]. > > Look foreign? Perhaps but it's worth getting your feet wet and kicking these > ideas around. I've seen many things and this is the first set of tools and > processes that make me feel good. Like it is equivalent and perhaps better > than WO. It's brain dead easy to install and there are a number of tutorials > out there. OK, I see what you are talking about now. I am not sure if that is a win for me. I have this designer that I often work with and he is able to take an Eclipse project and edit the .HTML files to make design changes. He does not touch the WOD or the Java. This has been working pretty well for us. Switching to Seaside would mean that we would have to take the initial designs, convert them into code, and have the developers maintain them through the inevitable changes. I'd have to see how much time the rest of it would save me. Chuck > From:Chuck Hill > To:arosenzw...@clinworx.com > Cc:WebObjects Mailing
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hey, Nah, don't even compare it. You can fully trust the JVM/JDK, there are literally millions, tens of millions of dollars maybe invested on it. You can't say the same about LISP and smalltalk runtime environments. Regards, Miguel Arroz On 2011-09-28, at 3:19 PM, Pascal Robert wrote: > > Le 2011-09-28 à 14:41, Miguel Arroz a écrit : > >> Hey, >> >> Not at all! :) I admit I did play a bit of Devil's advocate with you, but >> in the end it's what I felt when using, huh, alternative (esoteric?) stuff. >> You have to be ready to solve, by yourself, any problem that will came up on >> the entire stack, from the compiler/interpreter/VM to all frameworks and who >> knows what, because things are WAY less tested and there's WAY less >> resources (people, time and money) involved (which means there are WAY more >> problems yet to be fixed). > > "WAY less resources (people, time and money) involved (which means there are > WAY more problems yet to be fixed)." Hum, that sounds like our community > too... > >> At the time, I had not enough skills to face that. Dealing with why LISP >> environment was not playing along with the MySQL lib on the C/C++ world, >> etc, was frustrating and a good eye-opener. On the bright side, I had a very >> simple blog for some time hosted on my home's G4 running on LISP - coded by >> a friend. So technically, although I didn't write it, I used a LISP web >> application. :) >> >> Anyway, do I see someone saying he'll do a presentation on Seaside on the >> next WOWODC? Because I definitely would be there. >> >> Regards, >> >> Miguel Arroz >> >> >> On 2011-09-28, at 11:29 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: >> >>> Hi Miguel, >>> >>> I apologize. You are on this list more than I am. I *know* you know your >>> craft. >>> >>> I was overly blunt in my words and crossed the line. >>> >>> I'm sorry. >>> >>> -- Aaron >>> >>> Miguel Arroz wrote on 09/28/2011 02:12:41 PM: >>> >>> > From: Miguel Arroz >>> > To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com >>> > Cc: Chuck Hill , WebObjects Mailing List >>> > >>> > Date: 09/28/2011 02:13 PM >>> > Subject: Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) >>> > >>> >>> > Trust me, I'm one of the most open minded persons you'll ever know >>> > when it comes to software. :) I would use LISP for everything if I could. >>> > >> >> >> ___ >> 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: >> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/probert%40macti.ca >> >> This email sent to prob...@macti.ca > ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Le 2011-09-28 à 14:41, Miguel Arroz a écrit : > Hey, > > Not at all! :) I admit I did play a bit of Devil's advocate with you, but > in the end it's what I felt when using, huh, alternative (esoteric?) stuff. > You have to be ready to solve, by yourself, any problem that will came up on > the entire stack, from the compiler/interpreter/VM to all frameworks and who > knows what, because things are WAY less tested and there's WAY less resources > (people, time and money) involved (which means there are WAY more problems > yet to be fixed). "WAY less resources (people, time and money) involved (which means there are WAY more problems yet to be fixed)." Hum, that sounds like our community too... > At the time, I had not enough skills to face that. Dealing with why LISP > environment was not playing along with the MySQL lib on the C/C++ world, etc, > was frustrating and a good eye-opener. On the bright side, I had a very > simple blog for some time hosted on my home's G4 running on LISP - coded by a > friend. So technically, although I didn't write it, I used a LISP web > application. :) > > Anyway, do I see someone saying he'll do a presentation on Seaside on the > next WOWODC? Because I definitely would be there. > > Regards, > > Miguel Arroz > > > On 2011-09-28, at 11:29 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > >> Hi Miguel, >> >> I apologize. You are on this list more than I am. I *know* you know your >> craft. >> >> I was overly blunt in my words and crossed the line. >> >> I'm sorry. >> >> -- Aaron >> >> Miguel Arroz wrote on 09/28/2011 02:12:41 PM: >> >> > From: Miguel Arroz >> > To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com >> > Cc: Chuck Hill , WebObjects Mailing List >> > >> > Date: 09/28/2011 02:13 PM >> > Subject: Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) >> > >> >> > Trust me, I'm one of the most open minded persons you'll ever know >> > when it comes to software. :) I would use LISP for everything if I could. >> > > > > ___ > 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: > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/probert%40macti.ca > > This email sent to prob...@macti.ca ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hello Aaron; Anyway I think we table this discussion... This is a WO list after all. Thanks for your overview; it is always interesting to hear about other systems and approaches like this. Of course Smalltalk is a whole different ball-game to java, but it sounds like the component-state architecture is a ~little~ bit more akin to Apache Wicket if you can imagine a scenario where Wicket were to have no actual template. cheers. -- Andrew Lindesay www.silvereye.co.nz ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Thanks Ramsey, I didn't know WOLips did that. That is cool :-) Anyway I think we table this discussion... This is a WO list after all. I probably should have kept my mouth shut. For Andrew, Chuck, Mark, Jim, and others I'll give one quick overview and be done. Everything is out there on the net anyway. When I picked up Ruby on Rails after attending a "No Fluff Just Stuff" convention I thought to myself "Did these people ever use WebObjects?" To me you need to learn and use WO before you can even think about making something better. When I picked up Seaside and tried doing stuff with it I thought "Wow, this guy made WO Better." All the plumbing is there and it makes sense. Back in 2009 I wrote this blog post that explains this a bit more: http://www.somethingiknow.com/aaronCorner/aaronSoftwareBlog/What_happened_to_WebObjects Briefly I'll add the following: Smalltalk -> Eclipse plus Java and JRebel combined Seaside -> WebObjects, AJAX, WOnder without the EOF bits - "magic" component actions, synchronization of bindings, and sessionless direct actions. Magritte -> D2W Monticello -> GIT Swazoo -> WOMonitor, WOTaskd Gemstone -> Object database on par with Oracle (expensive, widely used) Magma -> Object database on par with Postgress (open source, not as widely used) Handful of ORM solutions for relational db -> on par with Hibernate All those times you use WO and say "it's magic" you get that same feeling with Seaside. Very few frameworks do this well. -- Aaron Ramsey Gurley wrote on 09/28/2011 02:31:38 PM: > > Just in response to that last part... Command-shift-F works fine for > me to reformat a WOComponent's html in WOLips. It uses spaces > instead of tabs though, which bugs the crap out of me. Well, enough > not to use it very often, but not enough to actually find a way to > make it use tabs when I use it. (^_^) > > Ramsey > > ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hey, Not at all! :) I admit I did play a bit of Devil's advocate with you, but in the end it's what I felt when using, huh, alternative (esoteric?) stuff. You have to be ready to solve, by yourself, any problem that will came up on the entire stack, from the compiler/interpreter/VM to all frameworks and who knows what, because things are WAY less tested and there's WAY less resources (people, time and money) involved (which means there are WAY more problems yet to be fixed). At the time, I had not enough skills to face that. Dealing with why LISP environment was not playing along with the MySQL lib on the C/C++ world, etc, was frustrating and a good eye-opener. On the bright side, I had a very simple blog for some time hosted on my home's G4 running on LISP - coded by a friend. So technically, although I didn't write it, I used a LISP web application. :) Anyway, do I see someone saying he'll do a presentation on Seaside on the next WOWODC? Because I definitely would be there. Regards, Miguel Arroz On 2011-09-28, at 11:29 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > Hi Miguel, > > I apologize. You are on this list more than I am. I *know* you know your > craft. > > I was overly blunt in my words and crossed the line. > > I'm sorry. > > -- Aaron > > Miguel Arroz wrote on 09/28/2011 02:12:41 PM: > > > From: Miguel Arroz > > To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com > > Cc: Chuck Hill , WebObjects Mailing List > > > > Date: 09/28/2011 02:13 PM > > Subject: Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) > > > > > Trust me, I'm one of the most open minded persons you'll ever know > > when it comes to software. :) I would use LISP for everything if I could. > > ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:05 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > Hi Tom, > > What you say makes sense at the face of it but when you get into the > details... does it really buy you anything? > > When you ask a graphics designer to to design something for you they > basically do it the way they want to. You can ask for this or that but in the > end you will have to put the images somewhere. You will get upset it's not > xhtml compliant and tweak the code. You are going to add your "webojects" > tags. You are actually going to massage those files in many different ways. > It is very rare that you'll get something complete that you can totally plug > and play. > > What is the real difference in taking the time to break out the presentation > in HTML / .wod versus doing it in pure programming as in the snippet I > showed? Very little. In essence you are paying the designer to give you > something that looks good, it is still your job to put it into a dynamic web > app. > > So for roughly equivalent effort to setup your app you then gain the ability > to read it easier and refactor it. In the long run it is a big win. This is > one of those things you need to try before you discount it. > > Remember how we used to "pretty print" or "reformat" in the WOBuilder days? > Perhaps I'm now showing my age... It was beautiful. I miss that. I can > actually do that in Seaside by just asking the syntax to reformat. It's just > like you ask Eclipse to auto-indent your java source. > > -- Aaron Just in response to that last part... Command-shift-F works fine for me to reformat a WOComponent's html in WOLips. It uses spaces instead of tabs though, which bugs the crap out of me. Well, enough not to use it very often, but not enough to actually find a way to make it use tabs when I use it. (^_^) Ramsey > > > > From:"Tom M. Blenko" > To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com > Cc:WebObjects Mailing List > Date:09/28/2011 01:21 PM > Subject:Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) > > > > > I also prefer .html/.wod model because it's (close to) separating view and > controller. > > I'm accustomed to receiving HTML from someone who, e.g., cuts the page, > provides images, puts in pro-forma tags for active elements. The supplier is > responsible to deliver a page (he wraps it in a little PHP) that is > displayable and tested across browsers (I think he tests against 17 of them). > I then insert the active elements, supply JavaScript, etc. I also may receive > updates to the page in HTML (in which case I'm doing some kind of diff on > HTML and update on HTML/wod). > > It looks to me as if this process is going to become a lot more work on my > side and a lot more error prone if I go to this non-HTML/"single source" > approach -- unless I get the HTML supplier to instead give me Seaside. > > Am I understanding this correctly? > > Tom > > > On Sep 28, 2011, at 9:38 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > > Hi Chuck, > > I can feel your gears turning. That's a good thing! > > 1) PHP is nothing but a template file (with embedded programming) > > 2) WO has a template file, a programming file, and it also has "in-line" > binding which I've never been a fan of. Then there is the OGNL too... > > 3) Seaside is nothing but programming logic. > > So PHP is on one side and Seaside is on the other. WO is in the middle. > > We all can agree that the PHP, JSP, etc. way is a nightmare. You can make > good software but you have to work harder. > > WO way is better. For many years I really liked the way the .html / .wod was > nothing but presentation and bindings. OGNL is cool for quick and dirty but > it didn't feel right to me being too cluttered like the PHP way and hard to > debug. Inline bindings also clutter the HTML file and never resonated with me > either. Maybe... perhaps its cool for a WOString with a single value but > anything other than that... I'd rather someone use the .wod file. The Apple > way was insane, you had to do all inline bindings or none. The WOnder way is > best, able to mix the two. > > In WO there is the minor hassle of finding the line in HTML that matches up > with the .wod file. Using WOlips this is easy because it finds it for you and > jumps you right there to synchronize the two files in a split view. One thing > WOLips can't do is refactor that code. Only Java code is refactorable. You > also have to be extremely astute that you output correct and balanced HTML > > Seas
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hi Miguel, I apologize. You are on this list more than I am. I *know* you know your craft. I was overly blunt in my words and crossed the line. I'm sorry. -- Aaron Miguel Arroz wrote on 09/28/2011 02:12:41 PM: > From: Miguel Arroz > To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com > Cc: Chuck Hill , WebObjects Mailing List > > Date: 09/28/2011 02:13 PM > Subject: Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) > > Trust me, I'm one of the most open minded persons you'll ever know > when it comes to software. :) I would use LISP for everything if I could. > ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hi, On 2011-09-28, at 10:38 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > It's easy. Sorry my friend but you sound a bit like that guy David alluded to > who said "just show me the jdbc connection". If you want to gain the insight > of something new and different, you have to open your mind and put in some > effort to experience it. Trust me, I'm one of the most open minded persons you'll ever know when it comes to software. :) I would use LISP for everything if I could. > On the outside consider this - the equivalent of WOCommunity in the Seaside > world has free app hosting for Seaside projects. That's right, write your app > and let someone else host it out there on a remote server, and do it for > free. How can they do it? because it is easy. Well, that can be said for Ruby on Rails or even J2EE. You don't see many WO deployment services out there because the market is tiny, not because it's easy or hard. People will do anything if it's profitable. This ranges from deployment services to invading countries. Being easy or hard doesn't really matter. > What about us? We have nothing free, heck, it's hard to even pay for it. > We're left with setting up something complete on EC2 or Linode. Those are > good options but please understand just because we understand how to deploy > with WO does not mean it is easy. It is actually hard to do in WO > (comparatively). I would not deploy my business on a free service, but that's just me. As that popular Facebook-ranting image says, if you're not paying, then YOU are the product. :) > The cult of the dead always wants a file or a bundle to touch and caress. > Without this crutch they feel out of place. So you are defending Seaside and smalltalk and bring up the cult of dead? Interesting! :) Can we join Amiga to the discussion, just to make it more diverse? > "Monticello" makes version control and app distribution pretty easy. Nobody > argues whether to use SVN, CVS, GIT, Darcs, etc... Monticello is the answer. > It's all integrated. It just works... You know, like when Apple used to wrap > WO in a nice little burrito and you could just click "install". So what you are saying is that it's still terribly complicated to send a file from one smalltalk environment to the other. File, or class, or data, or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I explored Seaside, LISP web and SQL frameworks, and many other stuff when I was looking for a decent web stack. I love the ideas behind many of that stuff (not the LISP frameworks, they sucked, but I love LISP as a language). But they *do* present very serious practical problems. For instance, I had two similar Macs, a Pismo and an iBook, both with G3 processors, same version of OS X, mysql, LISP environment, etc. I did all the steps at the same time on both machines to make sure I did not make any mistake. On one machine, LISP could talk to the DB. On the other machine, it couldn't. Up to today I have no idea why, and of course, I could not find anything on the internet since the 7 guys who also use that never had that problem. Regards, Miguel Arroz > > -- Aaron > > > > From: Miguel Arroz > To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com > Cc:Chuck Hill , WebObjects Mailing List > > Date:09/28/2011 01:15 PM > Subject:Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) > > > > Hi, > > And how easy is it now to move applications between environments? I > remember that, when I looked at Seaside, due to all that "liveness" it was > really hard to separate an app from an environment, so people would > essentially carry away the entire smalltalk environment with it. Seemed quite > sketchy and hard to use (and deploy) in the real world, but I could be wrong. > > If only there were decent frameworks in LISP... > > Regards > > Miguel Arroz > > On 2011-09-28, at 9:38 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > > Hi Chuck, > > I can feel your gears turning. That's a good thing! > > 1) PHP is nothing but a template file (with embedded programming) > > 2) WO has a template file, a programming file, and it also has "in-line" > binding which I've never been a fan of. Then there is the OGNL too... > > 3) Seaside is nothing but programming logic. > > So PHP is on one side and Seaside is on the other. WO is in the middle. > > We all can agree that the PHP, JSP, etc. way is a nightmare. You can make > good software but you have to work harder. > > WO way is better. For many years I really liked the way the .html / .wod was > nothing but presentation and bindings. OGNL is cool for quick and d
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hi Tom, What you say makes sense at the face of it but when you get into the details... does it really buy you anything? When you ask a graphics designer to to design something for you they basically do it the way they want to. You can ask for this or that but in the end you will have to put the images somewhere. You will get upset it's not xhtml compliant and tweak the code. You are going to add your "webojects" tags. You are actually going to massage those files in many different ways. It is very rare that you'll get something complete that you can totally plug and play. What is the real difference in taking the time to break out the presentation in HTML / .wod versus doing it in pure programming as in the snippet I showed? Very little. In essence you are paying the designer to give you something that looks good, it is still your job to put it into a dynamic web app. So for roughly equivalent effort to setup your app you then gain the ability to read it easier and refactor it. In the long run it is a big win. This is one of those things you need to try before you discount it. Remember how we used to "pretty print" or "reformat" in the WOBuilder days? Perhaps I'm now showing my age... It was beautiful. I miss that. I can actually do that in Seaside by just asking the syntax to reformat. It's just like you ask Eclipse to auto-indent your java source. -- Aaron From: "Tom M. Blenko" To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com Cc: WebObjects Mailing List Date: 09/28/2011 01:21 PM Subject:Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) I also prefer .html/.wod model because it's (close to) separating view and controller. I'm accustomed to receiving HTML from someone who, e.g., cuts the page, provides images, puts in pro-forma tags for active elements. The supplier is responsible to deliver a page (he wraps it in a little PHP) that is displayable and tested across browsers (I think he tests against 17 of them). I then insert the active elements, supply JavaScript, etc. I also may receive updates to the page in HTML (in which case I'm doing some kind of diff on HTML and update on HTML/wod). It looks to me as if this process is going to become a lot more work on my side and a lot more error prone if I go to this non-HTML/"single source" approach -- unless I get the HTML supplier to instead give me Seaside. Am I understanding this correctly? Tom On Sep 28, 2011, at 9:38 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: Hi Chuck, I can feel your gears turning. That's a good thing! 1) PHP is nothing but a template file (with embedded programming) 2) WO has a template file, a programming file, and it also has "in-line" binding which I've never been a fan of. Then there is the OGNL too... 3) Seaside is nothing but programming logic. So PHP is on one side and Seaside is on the other. WO is in the middle. We all can agree that the PHP, JSP, etc. way is a nightmare. You can make good software but you have to work harder. WO way is better. For many years I really liked the way the .html / .wod was nothing but presentation and bindings. OGNL is cool for quick and dirty but it didn't feel right to me being too cluttered like the PHP way and hard to debug. Inline bindings also clutter the HTML file and never resonated with me either. Maybe... perhaps its cool for a WOString with a single value but anything other than that... I'd rather someone use the .wod file. The Apple way was insane, you had to do all inline bindings or none. The WOnder way is best, able to mix the two. In WO there is the minor hassle of finding the line in HTML that matches up with the .wod file. Using WOlips this is easy because it finds it for you and jumps you right there to synchronize the two files in a split view. One thing WOLips can't do is refactor that code. Only Java code is refactorable. You also have to be extremely astute that you output correct and balanced HTML Seaside way is best. By using a living language, everything is immediate, you don't feel the urge to cheat like with OGNL. By removing the template file entirely and using objects you get so many benefits. 1) No extra files to coordinate. 2) no HTML syntax problems. 3) you can refactor ALL of your code, not just the business logic. 4) you can still partition your presentation logic - but instead of putting it in a different file you put it in a method. 5) did I mention everything is alive? There isn't even a source code file to deal with. No compiling, no interpreting static files, no need for an add-on like JavaRebel. In Eclipse you can query for methods given part of a name you remember. In Smalltalk you can query for methods that take such and such parameters and evoke a certain value, you don't even have to know the method name. Smalltalk will
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hi Miguel, It's easy. Sorry my friend but you sound a bit like that guy David alluded to who said "just show me the jdbc connection". If you want to gain the insight of something new and different, you have to open your mind and put in some effort to experience it. On the outside consider this - the equivalent of WOCommunity in the Seaside world has free app hosting for Seaside projects. That's right, write your app and let someone else host it out there on a remote server, and do it for free. How can they do it? because it is easy. What about us? We have nothing free, heck, it's hard to even pay for it. We're left with setting up something complete on EC2 or Linode. Those are good options but please understand just because we understand how to deploy with WO does not mean it is easy. It is actually hard to do in WO (comparatively). The cult of the dead always wants a file or a bundle to touch and caress. Without this crutch they feel out of place. "Monticello" makes version control and app distribution pretty easy. Nobody argues whether to use SVN, CVS, GIT, Darcs, etc... Monticello is the answer. It's all integrated. It just works... You know, like when Apple used to wrap WO in a nice little burrito and you could just click "install". -- Aaron From: Miguel Arroz To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com Cc: Chuck Hill , WebObjects Mailing List Date: 09/28/2011 01:15 PM Subject: Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) Hi, And how easy is it now to move applications between environments? I remember that, when I looked at Seaside, due to all that "liveness" it was really hard to separate an app from an environment, so people would essentially carry away the entire smalltalk environment with it. Seemed quite sketchy and hard to use (and deploy) in the real world, but I could be wrong. If only there were decent frameworks in LISP... Regards Miguel Arroz On 2011-09-28, at 9:38 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: Hi Chuck, I can feel your gears turning. That's a good thing! 1) PHP is nothing but a template file (with embedded programming) 2) WO has a template file, a programming file, and it also has "in-line" binding which I've never been a fan of. Then there is the OGNL too... 3) Seaside is nothing but programming logic. So PHP is on one side and Seaside is on the other. WO is in the middle. We all can agree that the PHP, JSP, etc. way is a nightmare. You can make good software but you have to work harder. WO way is better. For many years I really liked the way the .html / .wod was nothing but presentation and bindings. OGNL is cool for quick and dirty but it didn't feel right to me being too cluttered like the PHP way and hard to debug. Inline bindings also clutter the HTML file and never resonated with me either. Maybe... perhaps its cool for a WOString with a single value but anything other than that... I'd rather someone use the .wod file. The Apple way was insane, you had to do all inline bindings or none. The WOnder way is best, able to mix the two. In WO there is the minor hassle of finding the line in HTML that matches up with the .wod file. Using WOlips this is easy because it finds it for you and jumps you right there to synchronize the two files in a split view. One thing WOLips can't do is refactor that code. Only Java code is refactorable. You also have to be extremely astute that you output correct and balanced HTML Seaside way is best. By using a living language, everything is immediate, you don't feel the urge to cheat like with OGNL. By removing the template file entirely and using objects you get so many benefits. 1) No extra files to coordinate. 2) no HTML syntax problems. 3) you can refactor ALL of your code, not just the business logic. 4) you can still partition your presentation logic - but instead of putting it in a different file you put it in a method. 5) did I mention everything is alive? There isn't even a source code file to deal with. No compiling, no interpreting static files, no need for an add-on like JavaRebel. In Eclipse you can query for methods given part of a name you remember. In Smalltalk you can query for methods that take such and such parameters and evoke a certain value, you don't even have to know the method name. Smalltalk will immediately give you a handful of methods that do "greatest common denominator" for example. "Living" versus "Living Dead" there is a difference but I digress. Here is an example of how presentation is rendered in Seaside. Bare in mind that "renderContentOn" is akin to "appendToResponse". And that "html" is an object which gets passed into the method that is a bit like a WOContext and a String buffer rolled into one. In this example it is
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
I also prefer .html/.wod model because it's (close to) separating view and controller. I'm accustomed to receiving HTML from someone who, e.g., cuts the page, provides images, puts in pro-forma tags for active elements. The supplier is responsible to deliver a page (he wraps it in a little PHP) that is displayable and tested across browsers (I think he tests against 17 of them). I then insert the active elements, supply JavaScript, etc. I also may receive updates to the page in HTML (in which case I'm doing some kind of diff on HTML and update on HTML/wod). It looks to me as if this process is going to become a lot more work on my side and a lot more error prone if I go to this non-HTML/"single source" approach -- unless I get the HTML supplier to instead give me Seaside. Am I understanding this correctly? Tom On Sep 28, 2011, at 9:38 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > I can feel your gears turning. That's a good thing! > > 1) PHP is nothing but a template file (with embedded programming) > > 2) WO has a template file, a programming file, and it also has "in-line" > binding which I've never been a fan of. Then there is the OGNL too... > > 3) Seaside is nothing but programming logic. > > So PHP is on one side and Seaside is on the other. WO is in the middle. > > We all can agree that the PHP, JSP, etc. way is a nightmare. You can make > good software but you have to work harder. > > WO way is better. For many years I really liked the way the .html / .wod was > nothing but presentation and bindings. OGNL is cool for quick and dirty but > it didn't feel right to me being too cluttered like the PHP way and hard to > debug. Inline bindings also clutter the HTML file and never resonated with me > either. Maybe... perhaps its cool for a WOString with a single value but > anything other than that... I'd rather someone use the .wod file. The Apple > way was insane, you had to do all inline bindings or none. The WOnder way is > best, able to mix the two. > > In WO there is the minor hassle of finding the line in HTML that matches up > with the .wod file. Using WOlips this is easy because it finds it for you and > jumps you right there to synchronize the two files in a split view. One thing > WOLips can't do is refactor that code. Only Java code is refactorable. You > also have to be extremely astute that you output correct and balanced HTML > > Seaside way is best. By using a living language, everything is immediate, you > don't feel the urge to cheat like with OGNL. By removing the template file > entirely and using objects you get so many benefits. > > 1) No extra files to coordinate. > > 2) no HTML syntax problems. > > 3) you can refactor ALL of your code, not just the business logic. > > 4) you can still partition your presentation logic - but instead of putting > it in a different file you put it in a method. > > 5) did I mention everything is alive? There isn't even a source code file to > deal with. No compiling, no interpreting static files, no need for an add-on > like JavaRebel. In Eclipse you can query for methods given part of a name you > remember. In Smalltalk you can query for methods that take such and such > parameters and evoke a certain value, you don't even have to know the method > name. Smalltalk will immediately give you a handful of methods that do > "greatest common denominator" for example. "Living" versus "Living Dead" > there is a difference but I digress. > > Here is an example of how presentation is rendered in Seaside. Bare in mind > that "renderContentOn" is akin to "appendToResponse". And that "html" is an > object which gets passed into the method that is a bit like a WOContext and a > String buffer rolled into one. In this example it is going to render an HTML > table with table rows and table data cells: > > renderContentOn: html > > html table: [ > html >tableRow: [ > html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]; >tableRow: [ > html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]]. > > Look foreign? Perhaps but it's worth getting your feet wet and kicking these > ideas around. I've seen many things and this is the first set of tools and > processes that make me feel good. Like it is equivalent and perhaps better > than WO. It's brain dead easy to install and there are a number of tutorials > out there. > > -- Aaron > > > > From:Chuck Hill > To:arosenzw...@clinworx.com > Cc:WebObjects Mailing List > Date:
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hi, And how easy is it now to move applications between environments? I remember that, when I looked at Seaside, due to all that "liveness" it was really hard to separate an app from an environment, so people would essentially carry away the entire smalltalk environment with it. Seemed quite sketchy and hard to use (and deploy) in the real world, but I could be wrong. If only there were decent frameworks in LISP... Regards Miguel Arroz On 2011-09-28, at 9:38 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > I can feel your gears turning. That's a good thing! > > 1) PHP is nothing but a template file (with embedded programming) > > 2) WO has a template file, a programming file, and it also has "in-line" > binding which I've never been a fan of. Then there is the OGNL too... > > 3) Seaside is nothing but programming logic. > > So PHP is on one side and Seaside is on the other. WO is in the middle. > > We all can agree that the PHP, JSP, etc. way is a nightmare. You can make > good software but you have to work harder. > > WO way is better. For many years I really liked the way the .html / .wod was > nothing but presentation and bindings. OGNL is cool for quick and dirty but > it didn't feel right to me being too cluttered like the PHP way and hard to > debug. Inline bindings also clutter the HTML file and never resonated with me > either. Maybe... perhaps its cool for a WOString with a single value but > anything other than that... I'd rather someone use the .wod file. The Apple > way was insane, you had to do all inline bindings or none. The WOnder way is > best, able to mix the two. > > In WO there is the minor hassle of finding the line in HTML that matches up > with the .wod file. Using WOlips this is easy because it finds it for you and > jumps you right there to synchronize the two files in a split view. One thing > WOLips can't do is refactor that code. Only Java code is refactorable. You > also have to be extremely astute that you output correct and balanced HTML > > Seaside way is best. By using a living language, everything is immediate, you > don't feel the urge to cheat like with OGNL. By removing the template file > entirely and using objects you get so many benefits. > > 1) No extra files to coordinate. > > 2) no HTML syntax problems. > > 3) you can refactor ALL of your code, not just the business logic. > > 4) you can still partition your presentation logic - but instead of putting > it in a different file you put it in a method. > > 5) did I mention everything is alive? There isn't even a source code file to > deal with. No compiling, no interpreting static files, no need for an add-on > like JavaRebel. In Eclipse you can query for methods given part of a name you > remember. In Smalltalk you can query for methods that take such and such > parameters and evoke a certain value, you don't even have to know the method > name. Smalltalk will immediately give you a handful of methods that do > "greatest common denominator" for example. "Living" versus "Living Dead" > there is a difference but I digress. > > Here is an example of how presentation is rendered in Seaside. Bare in mind > that "renderContentOn" is akin to "appendToResponse". And that "html" is an > object which gets passed into the method that is a bit like a WOContext and a > String buffer rolled into one. In this example it is going to render an HTML > table with table rows and table data cells: > > renderContentOn: html > > html table: [ > html >tableRow: [ > html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]; >tableRow: [ > html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]]. > > Look foreign? Perhaps but it's worth getting your feet wet and kicking these > ideas around. I've seen many things and this is the first set of tools and > processes that make me feel good. Like it is equivalent and perhaps better > than WO. It's brain dead easy to install and there are a number of tutorials > out there. > > -- Aaron > > > > From:Chuck Hill > To:arosenzw...@clinworx.com > Cc:WebObjects Mailing List > Date:09/27/2011 06:02 PM > Subject:Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) > > > > Hi Aaron, > > > On 2011-09-27, at 9:19 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > > > What is cool about Smalltalk / Seaside with respect to WO? > > > > 5) Even better than "in-line" binding it has no template file what-so-ever > > by design.
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hi Chuck, I can feel your gears turning. That's a good thing! 1) PHP is nothing but a template file (with embedded programming) 2) WO has a template file, a programming file, and it also has "in-line" binding which I've never been a fan of. Then there is the OGNL too... 3) Seaside is nothing but programming logic. So PHP is on one side and Seaside is on the other. WO is in the middle. We all can agree that the PHP, JSP, etc. way is a nightmare. You can make good software but you have to work harder. WO way is better. For many years I really liked the way the .html / .wod was nothing but presentation and bindings. OGNL is cool for quick and dirty but it didn't feel right to me being too cluttered like the PHP way and hard to debug. Inline bindings also clutter the HTML file and never resonated with me either. Maybe... perhaps its cool for a WOString with a single value but anything other than that... I'd rather someone use the .wod file. The Apple way was insane, you had to do all inline bindings or none. The WOnder way is best, able to mix the two. In WO there is the minor hassle of finding the line in HTML that matches up with the .wod file. Using WOlips this is easy because it finds it for you and jumps you right there to synchronize the two files in a split view. One thing WOLips can't do is refactor that code. Only Java code is refactorable. You also have to be extremely astute that you output correct and balanced HTML Seaside way is best. By using a living language, everything is immediate, you don't feel the urge to cheat like with OGNL. By removing the template file entirely and using objects you get so many benefits. 1) No extra files to coordinate. 2) no HTML syntax problems. 3) you can refactor ALL of your code, not just the business logic. 4) you can still partition your presentation logic - but instead of putting it in a different file you put it in a method. 5) did I mention everything is alive? There isn't even a source code file to deal with. No compiling, no interpreting static files, no need for an add-on like JavaRebel. In Eclipse you can query for methods given part of a name you remember. In Smalltalk you can query for methods that take such and such parameters and evoke a certain value, you don't even have to know the method name. Smalltalk will immediately give you a handful of methods that do "greatest common denominator" for example. "Living" versus "Living Dead" there is a difference but I digress. Here is an example of how presentation is rendered in Seaside. Bare in mind that "renderContentOn" is akin to "appendToResponse". And that "html" is an object which gets passed into the method that is a bit like a WOContext and a String buffer rolled into one. In this example it is going to render an HTML table with table rows and table data cells: renderContentOn: html html table: [ html tableRow: [ html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]; tableRow: [ html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]]. Look foreign? Perhaps but it's worth getting your feet wet and kicking these ideas around. I've seen many things and this is the first set of tools and processes that make me feel good. Like it is equivalent and perhaps better than WO. It's brain dead easy to install and there are a number of tutorials out there. -- Aaron From: Chuck Hill To: arosenzw...@clinworx.com Cc: WebObjects Mailing List Date: 09/27/2011 06:02 PM Subject:Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead) Hi Aaron, On 2011-09-27, at 9:19 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > What is cool about Smalltalk / Seaside with respect to WO? > > 5) Even better than "in-line" binding it has no template file what-so-ever by design. All your HTML output is coded in the programming language. No more unbalanced DIV tags. Everything is refactorable. Is that better? In my imagination that makes it like PHP. Would that not obstruct what little view of page structure that is still there in WO? -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hi Aaron, On 2011-09-27, at 9:19 AM, arosenzw...@clinworx.com wrote: > What is cool about Smalltalk / Seaside with respect to WO? > > 5) Even better than "in-line" binding it has no template file what-so-ever by > design. All your HTML output is coded in the programming language. No more > unbalanced DIV tags. Everything is refactorable. Is that better? In my imagination that makes it like PHP. Would that not obstruct what little view of page structure that is still there in WO? -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Hi Marius, It's really up to you. It doesn't matter what development tools / frameworks you pick. You can make a good product in JSP... at some point your dedication and attitude determine how far you'll go and the rest doesn't matter. That being said, remember with Ruby on Rails everything is a "Direct Action". If that is ok with you, then that is ok. Personally I like to decide when to use "Component Actions" and when to use "Direct Actions" because there is a purpose for both. Finding good, interesting, talented people is hard. I think it is *easier* to find them when you are working with esoteric tools. If they balk at the idea of WO, then you don't want them anyway - that's a big time saver! You want people who believe in your vision above all else. The tools shouldn't matter to them and if they do, those people are not for you. For me, on a technical level, it's hard to find something better than WO. I do not like the closed nature of it but that is what it is. In your situation you are throwing out all kinds of technologies and thinking in all directions. Maybe take a month to indulge so you may "play" with them all without any other purpose. Do some simple proof of concept projects. Get a lay of the land. Personally I do this every 6 months to a year to satisfy my own intellectual curiosity and see if there is something better than WO. >From a person who has tried a lot of tools there is one that I'm surprised did not make your short list especially given your geographical area and your WO experience. Do consider Smalltalk with "Seaside." It's relatively big in Europe meaning they have the equivalent of WOWODC for Smalltalk called ESUG. What is cool about Smalltalk / Seaside with respect to WO? 1) It has stateful and stateless ability (Both "component actions" and "direct actions") 2) It has D2W (Magritte) 3) It has distributed version control (Monticello) 4) It has a no-nonsense one-click installer 5) Even better than "in-line" binding it has no template file what-so-ever by design. All your HTML output is coded in the programming language. No more unbalanced DIV tags. Everything is refactorable. 6) You can choose ORM or Object Database... We have objects, why do we need to model them down to relational tables? Now the choice is yours. 7) totally open source. Even better, you can see and make changes on the fly. You don't need to tack on a product like Java Rebel, you get this automatically. To sum it up java is a "dead" language. Those who love it blindly are members of the "cult of the dead". With eclipse java is like the "living dead" because you can quickly see who is calling what, refactor, etc. In other words you generally have to compile and then run Java to make it live. Conversely Smalltalk is a "living" language in every sense of the word. Oh, and Pascal, WO never stopped being cool. We are a good confederacy here. We put the cool in WO. It's not what you have, it's how you use it ;-) Best wishes, -- Aaron > Thanks to both of you, Philippe and Pascal, for some challenging insight, got me thinking a lot. > > Yes there's a lot of stuff for Java, that's really great. That's also why I like Scala and Clojure so > much, but the frameworks aren't ready yet. Do you have any >experience with Lift? Or Play? > > One thing I really like about RoR is Ruby, it's so much better than Java. Is Java really a good > language for a startup? I'm not sure. I also stumbled across Sinatra, what a revelation... > I've read your link, Philippe, but there are also some interesting comments... > > Deployment on the other hand is one of the things with WebObjects which gives me a > constant headache, WOMonitor has a lot of issues (e.g. doesn't restart scheduled apps, > or a lot of time outs) and I never managed to deploy a WO app in a Servlet container. > > Bye, > - Marius ___ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
