Perhaps we are thinking too much that a visual product has to come
out of the WOLips community. What if a product like Coda included
some WO integration? That way it's someone else's business model, etc
to get it done and make a profit out of it.
Ian
On 09/07/2007, at 2:41 PM, Louis Demers
On 6-Jul-07, at 17:36 , Chuck Hill wrote:
2. There is already an inspector (of sorts) for the WO tag being
edited. Click on the tag in the HTML and the WOD portion
automatically scrolls to the definition in the WOD. Ctrl-space in
the definition to see all bindings ( foo =). Adding an
Bounced first time for 50K limit here is link to your pony
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ROS/SPG-1113~Guinness-
for-Strength-Horse-and-Cart-Posters.jpg
On Jul 7, 2007, at 2:22 PM, David LeBer wrote:
Who needs a pony?
*Everyone* needs a pony!
__
On 7-Jul-07, at 1:33 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 7, 2007, at 9:01 AM, David LeBer wrote:
I use this *all* the time. "Hmm, let's see what Wonder's got."
type "ERX" [auto-complete, scroll, scroll] "Ooo
ERXEqualConditional" [return] "I wonder what the bindings
are?" [auto-complete] "Hmm,
On Jul 7, 2007, at 9:01 AM, David LeBer wrote:
I use this *all* the time. "Hmm, let's see what Wonder's got." type
"ERX" [auto-complete, scroll, scroll] "Ooo
ERXEqualConditional" [return] "I wonder what the bindings
are?" [auto-complete] "Hmm, negate, value1, value2, cool" etc.
Who need
On 7-Jul-07, at 9:51 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
I'm not challenging your visual preference here, just providing
context of how what you're asking works in Component Editor:
- ability to visually navigate the business logic. Typing auto-
completion doesn't help me (although WOBuilder does that)
I'm not challenging your visual preference here, just providing
context of how what you're asking works in Component Editor:
- ability to visually navigate the business logic. Typing auto-
completion doesn't help me (although WOBuilder does that) because
in my system with thousands of classe
To expand on what Janine said, I am a visual person, not a textual
person. The three things that I use all the time in WOBuilder are:
- [most important] the ability to visualise how the components in the
page are organised (NOT how it will be rendered), eg are all form
elements in the form.
Stampede++
:-)
On 6 Jul 07, at 2:10 PM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 06.07.2007, at 13:35, David LeBer wrote:
And the pony? I specifically asked for a pony!
Come to Calgary - it's Stampede week now, you might find one you
like ... ;-)
cug, saw lots of horses
today_
... and if someone has not already mentioned it, it is important to
understand web standards and accessibility guidelines and to do those
extra things that make your site accessible to those with
disabilities and others who would not otherwise be able to access
your site. So at least some
On 06.07.2007, at 13:35, David LeBer wrote:
And the pony? I specifically asked for a pony!
Come to Calgary - it's Stampede week now, you might find one you
like ... ;-)
cug, saw lots of horses today
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. T
With the differences in browsers and the ready availability of
multiple browsers along with a plethora of tools for analyzing and
inspecting html, page structure, javascript, css, dom, etc., etc.
(especially the tools in FireFox such as the awesome FireBug), having
visual rendering in yet a
I'm kicking my own ass for keeping this thread going, but I couldn't
resist. Until about a year ago, I was pretty dependent on WO
Builder, just because I'd never put together templates any other way,
so I know how a lot of the people who are complaining that there is
no rendering previewis
Click on the tag in the HTML and the WOD portion automatically
scrolls to the definition in the WOD.
sooommetimes ... It's a known bug though. I'm thinking of
adding hover popups on webobject tags in the HTML that show the
corresponding wod definition as well.
ms
On Jul 6, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Louis Demers wrote:
On 6-Jul-07, at 16:33 , Andrew Lindesay wrote:
Hello Janine;
The only feature of WOBuilder that I consider important is the one
that helps you to visualize what your component will look like when
it's rendered. WOBuilder always did a lousy j
Picture 2.png
Description: application/applefile
<>
?
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Louis Demers wrote:
On 6-Jul-07, at 16:33 , Andrew Lindesay wrote:
Hello Janine;
The only feature of WOBuilder that I consider important is the one
that helps you to visualize what your component will look l
On 6-Jul-07, at 16:33 , Andrew Lindesay wrote:
Hello Janine;
The only feature of WOBuilder that I consider important is the one
that helps you to visualize what your component will look like when
it's rendered. WOBuilder always did a lousy job of this, especially
It's interesting; we all h
Hello Janine;
The only feature of WOBuilder that I consider important is the one
that helps you to visualize what your component will look like when
it's rendered. WOBuilder always did a lousy job of this, especially
It's interesting; we all have quite different ways of working with
compone
On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:35 PM, David LeBer wrote:
On 6-Jul-07, at 3:22 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Oh, and while I'm asking, a re-factor into subcomponent tool
would be nice
http://issues.objectstyle.org/jira/browse/WOL-459
Notice the "Reporter". This WILL exist.
And the pony? I specifically a
On 6-Jul-07, at 3:22 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Oh, and while I'm asking, a re-factor into subcomponent tool would
be nice
http://issues.objectstyle.org/jira/browse/WOL-459
Notice the "Reporter". This WILL exist.
And the pony? I specifically asked for a pony!
--
;david
--
David LeBer
Codefer
On 6-Jul-07, at 3:20 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Like selecting a container element and seeing it's extent? ie:
click on a form and have the form up to the closing tag highlighted?
Look in the left hand gutter of the current component editor and
you'll see that the tag collapsing shows this when
Oh, and while I'm asking, a re-factor into subcomponent tool would
be nice
http://issues.objectstyle.org/jira/browse/WOL-459
Notice the "Reporter". This WILL exist.
ms
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev
Like selecting a container element and seeing it's extent? ie:
click on a form and have the form up to the closing tag highlighted?
Look in the left hand gutter of the current component editor and
you'll see that the tag collapsing shows this when you rollover the
gutter.
Picture 2.png
De
On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:59 AM, David LeBer wrote:
aboveSentiment * infinity
Yes of course, Mike has done a fantastic job (and continues to do so).
Do you really need to be able to see a rendered version of the page
in the tool to gain what you need (I usually make html changes
with my app
On 6-Jul-07, at 2:32 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
I have only one more thing to add to this thread ...
I really appreciate the incredible open source work Mike Schrag
has done in the last year on ComponentEditor and EntityModeler.
--
ab
Thanks .. I really didn't write that earlier response as a plea for
praise :)
ms
On Jul 6, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
I have only one more thing to add to this thread ...
I really appreciate the incredible open source work Mike Schrag has
done in the last year on Compone
On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
I have only one more thing to add to this thread ...
I really appreciate the incredible open source work Mike Schrag has
done in the last year on ComponentEditor and EntityModeler.
<>--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who wan
I have only one more thing to add to this thread ...
I really appreciate the incredible open source work Mike Schrag has
done in the last year on ComponentEditor and EntityModeler. I have no
complaints!!
As the old saying goes:
http://www.goenglish.com/DontLookAGiftHorseInTheMouth.asp
h
On Jul 6, 2007, at 9:26 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
Two: when new developers start poking at WO the complaint I hear is
"The docs are unclear and incomplete", not "What?!!? No WYWISYG
HTML editor?". It is a nice to have feature, not a critical one,
in attracting new developers. The critical th
On Jul 5, 2007, at 11:14 PM, Jeremy Rosenberg wrote:
At WWDC I was the only one who applauded the idea of a commercial
WOBuilder. And I would get my boss to buy me a copy, if it was
available, I'd buy any WebObjects tool, I love this stuff. But I
spent half of today learning how to set u
Oh my goodness, that is nice.
Thanks Mike
Simon
On 6 Jul 2007, at 12:47, Mike Schrag wrote:
Edit=>Refactor=>Reformat (or cmd-shift-f like in java). I probably
should make a Source menu for the HTML editor also to match the
Java editor.
ms
On Jul 6, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Simon McLean wrote:
Edit=>Refactor=>Reformat (or cmd-shift-f like in java). I probably
should make a Source menu for the HTML editor also to match the Java
editor.
ms
On Jul 6, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Simon McLean wrote:
Where is the refactoring stuff ?
Is there anyway of pretty-printing the html content of a
c
Where is the refactoring stuff ?
Is there anyway of pretty-printing the html content of a component ?
There used to be a source > format option but it's not there since i
updated to WOLips 3.3.4144.
Thanks, Simon
On 6 Jul 2007, at 12:29, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
The latest, absolutely kick
I apologize for not using proper markup, I don't have well
formed rants.
You should probably use here or I would end up
complaining that you have a without a ... Just for
future reference ;)
ms
___
Do not post admin requests to the list
All I can say is:
THANKS VERY MUCH Mike Schrag!
On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:57 AM, Clark Mueller wrote:
* Autocompletion is fantastic. This is already a deeply ingrained
part of my regular WOLips development workflow (I've only even been
using WOLips for about nine months), so it extends easily
n: NSDictionary of the form values
(Edgar Ra. Klein)
5. Re: DirectAction: NSDictionary of the form values
(Jean-Fran?ois Veillette)
6. Re: WOBuilder Replacement (Michael Warner)
7. Not an Eclipse Plugin (Sam Barnum)
8. Re: DirectAction: NSDictionary of the form values
At WWDC I was the only one who applauded the idea of a commercial
WOBuilder. And I would get my boss to buy me a copy, if it was
available, I'd buy any WebObjects tool, I love this stuff. But I
spent half of today learning how to set up my WebObjects projects in
Eclipse and edit the Compo
Hi Clark,
Thank you for a reasoned response in what has become a rather feisty
thread!
On Jul 5, 2007, at 9:57 PM, Clark Mueller wrote:
I was one of those who raised his hand - but honestly, I no longer
feel the same way, so it's even fewer than those few. Having
digested some of this d
I was one of those who raised his hand - but honestly, I no longer
feel the same way, so it's even fewer than those few. Having digested
some of this discussion going on for the past several days, I've
arrived at the conclusion that, as many people have indicated, the
current WOComponent ed
As usual, Chuck says the same thing I do, but with 1/4 of the words :)
On Jul 5, 2007, at 9:29 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Lastly, everybody is free to do what they want and I certainly
agree the we do not have any right to expect others to do work
freely for any of us. However I do not understand why there has to
be a business case for developing a WOBuilder replacement ? that it
must be absolutely profitable
Really tired of what I see a pointless conversation, but there are a
couple of things I feel a need to address.
On Jul 5, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Louis Demers wrote:
To those who think WO will not go away because it's too significant
a framework and because Apple uses it, think MacApp... A very
Sorry, this has accumulted inside of me for months, listening to the
eclipse evangelism..., but mostly to xcode/wobuilder tools being
disparaged and ridiculed, along with those who prefer them ...
On 5-Jul-07, at 16:36 , Chuck Hill wrote:
While it is not flashy, it is far more productive f
Galen,
Maybe you've had some bad experiences with open source projects, but
in my view, the WO open source world has been growing and growing for
many many years. Maybe it's because it's built around a commercial
product that has extremely long legs... I don't know, but I don't
think you
Galen,
Take some slow deep breaths before your head explodes. Here's the
beauty of an open source project for you: you don't have to use it.
If you think it isn't meeting your needs, run along and pay for
something that will. If wonder dies, it dies, but right now a lot of
people see
On Jul 5, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
<* SNIP *>
I doubt that very much. The development to date has been
developers building what _they_ personally need to get their job
done. Most of what is in Entity Modeler and WOComponent Editor are
things that Mike need to do his job more e
On Jul 5, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
I think about this app all the time, but I just have not yet seen
the economics. I asked at WWDC who would pay "real
money" (granted, an unspecified amount) for a WOBuilder and VERY
few hands went up in a pretty large room of WO developers.
On Jul 5, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Galen Rhodes wrote:
I predict that, unless there is a financial reward of some kind,
that WOLips development will stagnate and/or come to a complete
halt within the next 18 months if not sooner. And yes, that is a
challenge to the developers to hopefully prove
On Jul 5, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Ricardo Strausz wrote:
There are a lot of good business reasons to _not_ develop this. I
notice that everyone wants Mike to do it. I don't see anyone who
thinks it is such a good idea that their company should do it. :-)
Chuck
Wise Chuck!
I also would like some
There are a lot of good business reasons to _not_ develop this. I
notice that everyone wants Mike to do it. I don't see anyone who
thinks it is such a good idea that their company should do it. :-)
Chuck
Wise Chuck!
I also would like someone to develop a Cocoa EOF replacement, and pay
her
On Jul 5, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 05/07/2007, at 10:30 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Those estimates were all for starting from scratch, which I
believe is what should be done (Apple will not release the source
to the original, anyway -- I've brought it up several times over
t
On 05/07/2007, at 10:30 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Those estimates were all for starting from scratch, which I believe
is what should be done (Apple will not release the source to the
original, anyway -- I've brought it up several times over the last
couple years). To do a WOBuilder properly,
I believe that Gino is on the right track here. Having heard Mike
Schrag speak at WOWODC, I am sure that he and his associates
could create a wonderful (no pun intended) new WOBuilder. But for
reasons apart from the financing, such an effort seems ill-advised at
this time.
The main pro
Can't Apple be persuaded to contribute a small development team that
worked with other WO Community members on this...
That might bring costs down and offer a soft landing for those of us
that like to use a GUI to components and interface design...
Gino
On 5 Jul 2007, at 14:03, Jeremy Matth
People : I will create a specific survey in a couple of days about
WOLips and WOBuilder alternatives, so wait until next Monday (July
9th) to say how much licenses you will buy. It will be way more
easier to collect the numbers with a survey :-)
The problem is that we don't have "How many
Although I understand the speed and the ease of Eclipses' Editor, I
must admit that sometimes I miss WOBuilder...
I'd gladly pay $500 for a full WOBuilder Replacement...with or
without Entity Modeler bundled (Since Mike is working on that
anyways...)...maybe 2 licenses.
I might be able to
The problem is that we don't have "How many licenses would you buy at
$X?" which is really all that matters.
On Jul 5, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
Yes, the survey is asking that question with price ranges :
Some people think that what's missing from Eclipse/WOLips is a
graphical
Le 07-07-05 à 06:34, Jerry W. Walker a écrit :
Although $500 might be a fair reward for such a tool, I truly doubt
that enough parties would pay it to cover Chuck's and Mike's
estimates.
I think that there are few on this list who individually, or whose
companies, would pony up $500 per
Yes, the survey is asking that question with price ranges :
Some people think that what's missing from Eclipse/WOLips is a
graphical WOComponent editor to WebObjects Builder. Do you want such
a tool, and if yes, how much are you ready to give to have such a tool.
Yes, but it must be free a
Those estimates were all for starting from scratch, which I believe
is what should be done (Apple will not release the source to the
original, anyway -- I've brought it up several times over the last
couple years). To do a WOBuilder properly, it needs to be
rethought. WOBuilder now is bui
I am skeptical about fundraising in general, but then somehow even
losing US political candidates manage to raise tens of millions for
their campaigns, so what do I know :-)
Good luck! And maybe if you raise the cash upfront (as opposed to
trying to recoup the costs by selling licenses afte
That is collective action. You are never sure others will behave in
a cooperative way. But you must trust others in order to get anything
happening. So perhaps, instead of saying what you think others will
do, you should tell us about what you can be reasonably sure about:
what price you o
Although $500 might be a fair reward for such a tool, I truly doubt
that enough parties would pay it to cover Chuck's and Mike's estimates.
I think that there are few on this list who individually, or whose
companies, would pony up $500 per developer head for an undeveloped
piece of softwar
On 5 Jul 2007, at 09:53, Jean Pierre Malrieu wrote:
Let's say 500$ for a fully functional, polished EntityModeler /
WOBuilder bundle...
That would be a fair reward, considering all the stuff Mike gave to
the community.
Now that is a fine idea.
Simon ___
I too would pay $400
Gino
On 5 Jul 2007, at 09:55, Simon McLean wrote:
Hi Pascal -
Have you asked the 82 organisations how much they would pay ? We
would buy 3 seats at 400 USD each.
Simon
On 5 Jul 2007, at 08:57, Pascal Robert wrote:
Le 07-07-05 à 03:12, Jean Pierre Malrieu a écrit
Hi Pascal -
Have you asked the 82 organisations how much they would pay ? We
would buy 3 seats at 400 USD each.
Simon
On 5 Jul 2007, at 08:57, Pascal Robert wrote:
Le 07-07-05 à 03:12, Jean Pierre Malrieu a écrit :
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although
Le 5 juil. 07 à 09:57, Pascal Robert a écrit :
Le 07-07-05 à 03:12, Jean Pierre Malrieu a écrit :
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although XCODE is dead I rely quite a lot on some sort of visual
binding and element view and so keep on using it for that.
Any n
Le 07-07-05 à 03:12, Jean Pierre Malrieu a écrit :
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although XCODE is dead I rely quite a lot on some sort of visual
binding and element view and so keep on using it for that.
Any news would be good - I have seen the thread on the
Mike Schrag and I kicked this idea around a while back. We made a
ballpark estimate of US$100,000 to US$150,000 in development
costs. Still want to contribute financially? :-)
Yes why not? That's 100$ for 1000 persons, or 200$ for 500 persons.
It seems reasonable to me.
I'd certainly buy
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although XCODE is dead I rely quite a lot on some sort of visual
binding and element view and so keep on using it for that.
Any news would be good - I have seen the thread on the WIKI but
that does not have a conclusion - and I would
On Jul 4, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
Stateless is a little more work to implement than stateful I guess,
A little.
however it does have some advantages AFAIK (please correct me if I
am wrong) such as
- Ready to use in stateless pages since stateless pages/components
can o
Stateless is a little more work to implement than stateful I guess,
however it does have some advantages AFAIK (please correct me if I am
wrong) such as
- Ready to use in stateless pages since stateless pages/components
can only contain stateless components,
- Lower memory usage, one compon
Stateful NonSynchronized Reusable Components are pretty useful as well.
On Jul 4, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
Topic = "Stateless NonSynchronized Reusable Components"
these make life easier and easier
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 1
Topic = "Stateless NonSynchronized Reusable Components"
these make life easier and easier
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
3. Large, convoluted, table based layouts are very difficult to
visualize in a text only view.
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
3. Large, convoluted, table based layouts are very difficult to
visualize in a text only view. This is pretty obvious, but since
I've been using css instead of tables and breaking things into
components for my own stuff forever, I've not co
3. Large, convoluted, table based layouts are very difficult to
visualize in a text only view. This is pretty obvious, but since
I've been using css instead of tables and breaking things into
components for my own stuff forever, I've not confronted it head-
on before. So I think using the co
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 AM, David LeBer wrote:
On 4-Jul-07, at 1:58 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Gino Pacitti wrote:
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although XCODE is dead I rely quite a lot on some sort of visual
binding and eleme
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Gino Pacitti wrote:
Thanks Chuck
Would that be the same for a plug in for dreamweaver or some sort
of web 2 app using the OSX webkit?
No, those would probably be more. :-) The problem is not only the
GUI: you also need a model of the code behind it and real
Le 07-07-04 à 14:28, David LeBer a écrit :
On 4-Jul-07, at 1:58 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Gino Pacitti wrote:
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although XCODE is dead I rely quite a lot on some sort of visual
binding and element vi
On 4-Jul-07, at 1:58 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Gino Pacitti wrote:
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although XCODE is dead I rely quite a lot on some sort of visual
binding and element view and so keep on using it for that.
Any new
Le 07-07-04 à 13:58, Chuck Hill a écrit :
On Jul 4, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Gino Pacitti wrote:
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although XCODE is dead I rely quite a lot on some sort of visual
binding and element view and so keep on using it for that.
Any news
Thanks Chuck
Would that be the same for a plug in for dreamweaver or some sort of
web 2 app using the OSX webkit?
Gino
On 4 Jul 2007, at 18:58, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Gino Pacitti wrote:
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although XCO
On Jul 4, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Gino Pacitti wrote:
Has there been any development in a replacement for WOBuilder?
Although XCODE is dead I rely quite a lot on some sort of visual
binding and element view and so keep on using it for that.
Any news would be good - I have seen the thread on th
83 matches
Mail list logo
