One thing that has always worried me about scalability is keeping the per
user application state on the server in WOSession. Knowing more about
REST now, this is very unrestful and not stateless, which means will not
scale.
I don't see why something being unrestful and not stateless
wirehose beckons, but where is gary...
On 2010-11-19, at 9:17 AM, Jean-Francois Veillette wrote:
One thing that has always worried me about scalability is keeping the per
user application state on the server in WOSession. Knowing more about
REST now, this is very unrestful and not
On 17.11.2010, at 14:57, David Avendasora webobje...@avendasora.com
wrote:
Ah. It's a disused Omni list.
Why would we want to fragment the community by taking a valuable
conversation to a place that no one goes?
Dave
Because a specific single developer doesn't care and therefore this
Le 2010-11-17 à 00:34, Chuck Hill a écrit :
On Nov 16, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Michael Gargano wrote:
Definitely not wasted time. I pushed really hard and got my company to give
us the go ahead on WO this year. It was a hard enough sell to begin with,
but if there was no one updating
Back when Netruxr was using it, it didn't exist as a shareable SF project, only
as a free download of two (non-working) PB projects.
After they went bust shortly afterwards, there wasn't any promotion from them
as a company (obviously) and the main effort from the former members was Max
And can you PLEASE move this thread to wo-talk (where I'm not subscribed). I'm
getting seriously annoyed and wouldn't like to have to unsubscribe here too.
Cheers, Anjo
Am 17.11.2010 um 12:30 schrieb Anjo Krank:
Back when Netruxr was using it, it didn't exist as a shareable SF project,
wo-talk? We have a wo-talk mailing list? .. I never knew ... have I
missed much wo-talk these past 7 years?!
-Kieran
On Nov 17, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Anjo Krank wrote:
And can you PLEASE move this thread to wo-talk (where I'm not subscribed).
I'm getting seriously annoyed and wouldn't
If we do, it's not an Apple list. THere's only wo-announce, wo-dev and
wo-deploy.
Anjo, where's wo-talk?
Dave
On Nov 17, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
wo-talk? We have a wo-talk mailing list? .. I never knew ... have I
missed much wo-talk these past 7 years?!
-Kieran
Ah. It's a disused Omni list.
Why would we want to fragment the community by taking a valuable conversation
to a place that no one goes?
Dave
On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:32 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
If we do, it's not an Apple list. THere's only wo-announce, wo-dev and
wo-deploy.
Anjo,
The consistency of Anjo's dismissive attitude actually gets an LOL from me.
Meh, I did that in wonder years ago, however, he definitely has helped me
and the community immensely.
On Nov 17, 2010, at 8:57 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Ah. It's a disused Omni list.
Why would we want to
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=47787
On 17 November 2010 14:57, David Avendasora webobje...@avendasora.com wrote:
Ah. It's a disused Omni list.
Why would we want to fragment the community by taking a valuable conversation
to a place that no one goes?
Dave
On
On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:10 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
Le 2010-11-17 à 00:34, Chuck Hill a écrit :
Maybe we need a Jira space setup for the Wiki?
Since, contrary to the Wonder or WOLips source, you can fix stuff in the wiki
right away, I think we should work with tags instead. Found a
On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
If half of the number of people who complained about missing or poor X spent
20 hours making some co-ordinated improvements, things would be a lot
better. I don't know how to make that happen. For one, it requires someone
with a vision who
Same message with subject edited (sorry for replying to the whole digest).
Début du message réexpédié :
The fact that WO hasn't changed so much with time may be a sign that it got
it right from the beginning.
By where is the feeling of excitement? Many ideas in Wonder are rip off from
If you DO become iTunes, Google, or Twitter, your app won't scale. Period.
I've never seen a system that scales without investing substantial engineering
effort in profiling and rearchitecture after deployment.
This made it to my wall. I'm going to point at it whenever someone gets
another
Mike, couldn't you just have just left everyone with the cosy misconception
that
we wrote all this code 7 years ago, got it right first time and haven't had
to touch it since?
Alan
On Nov 16, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Michael Gargano wrote:
If you DO become iTunes, Google, or Twitter, your app
Mike said your app, obviously excluding his apps. ;-)
On Nov 16, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Alan Ward wrote:
Mike, couldn't you just have just left everyone with the cosy misconception
that
we wrote all this code 7 years ago, got it right first time and haven't had
to touch it since?
Alan
Of course I meant except ours :) That's why my title is Senior Engineer of
Martini-Pouring Services, making sure we're all comfortably numb while we kick
back and relax.
ms
On Nov 16, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Alan Ward wrote:
Mike, couldn't you just have just left everyone with the cosy
On 2010-11-16, at 2:11 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Of course I meant except ours :) That's why my title is Senior Engineer of
Martini-Pouring Services, making sure we're all comfortably numb while we
kick back and relax.
OK, the images I'm getting of you folks lounging around a pool sipping Mai
On Nov 16, 2010, at 12:16 PM, David LeBer wrote:
On 2010-11-16, at 2:11 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Of course I meant except ours :) That's why my title is Senior Engineer
of Martini-Pouring Services, making sure we're all comfortably numb while
we kick back and relax.
OK, the images I'm
Le 2010-11-16 à 14:42, Antonio Petri a écrit :
Of course, the sad reality is that our industry loves to just syntactically
masturbate with different languages and pretend that we're much better for it
when the reality is that basically nothing has changed in 30 years in terms
of how we
I think Mike and I should get together and form The Association of Luddites
Named Mike. That quote gives the term syntactic sugar a disturbing twist.
On Nov 16, 2010, at 2:27 PM, David Avendasora wrote:
I just have to say, Mike is on a role this thread:
1) If you DO become iTunes,
Now that I think of it, I'm not so sure I do agree that every technology sucks.
I certainly can appreciate well-designed elegant technologies that solve a
problem well. That's part of the excitement with this profession. If everything
just sucked most of us wouldn't be in it, well maybe those
On 17 Nov 2010, at 06:49, Pascal Robert wrote:
Le 2010-11-16 à 14:42, Antonio Petri a écrit :
Of course, the sad reality is that our industry loves to just syntactically
masturbate with different languages and pretend that we're much better for
it when the reality is that basically
It was for dramatic literary effect ... Obviously every technology has things
that are cool and things that are terrible. However, I have to say that I'm
pretty disappointed that, after 13 years, there isn't a clear choice of a
technology to switch to from WO. For all of its pitfalls, I think
I'm sure a good quant could build a suck correlation matrix and do a complete
analysis...I happen to agree - the only platform I like as much as WO is
Cocoa :)
On Nov 16, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
It was for dramatic literary effect ... Obviously every technology has things
It almost amuses me that we having these WO scalability conversations now. 10
years ago it was a ballsy move to use
WO for a big online application. Now I think it's more proven than ever even
though the pace of development has
clearly scaled back. It's funny that none of the newer
Me too. I wish Eclipse copied the Xcode 4 UI.
On Nov 16, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Ken Anderson wrote:
I'm sure a good quant could build a suck correlation matrix and do a complete
analysis...I happen to agree - the only platform I like as much as WO is
Cocoa :)
On Nov 16, 2010, at 5:40
On 17/11/2010, at 6:03 AM, Alan Ward wrote:
Mike, couldn't you just have just left everyone with the cosy misconception
that
we wrote all this code 7 years ago, got it right first time and haven't had
to touch it since?
Oh the irony ;) such a misconception was surely already the
On 17 Nov 2010, at 09:40, Mike Schrag wrote:
It was for dramatic literary effect ...
That's the way I took it to agree with. But as always your sayings are thought
provoking. Just thought I'd up the provocation. (Isn't that silly provo-k-ing,
provo-c-ation.)
I only have two problems with WO.
The fact that WO hasn't changed so much with time may be a sign that it got it
right from the beginning.
If you look at JEE (or J2EE), which may be considered as a competitor of WO, it
has gone through several major cycles, producing deep changes in the
existing technologies like EJB and
Bigger guns in defence of Pascal. Even if one doesn't think of C as being fat
and flabby, C++ certainly is.
This quote comes from John Backus: Can Programming be Liberated from the von
Neumann Style?
http://www.thocp.net/biographies/papers/backus_turingaward_lecture.pdf
1. Conventional
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 14:52, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
That's a good distinction about quickly. Seems most get a kick from the
first learning of something to get it quickly happening. Hence
On 17 Nov 2010, at 11:43, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
One student in his experience report mentioned that professional programmers
should spend extra time on making their stuff usable and easily installable
if they are going to expect people to use
Le 2010-11-16 à 19:43, Chuck Hill a écrit :
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 14:52, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
That's a good distinction about quickly. Seems most get a kick from the
first learning of something to get
On Nov 16, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
I think an important distinction here is between expect people to use their
systems and allow people to use their systems. Wonder largely falls in
the second category. I made this because I found it interesting and you
can use it if you
On Nov 16, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 17 Nov 2010, at 11:43, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
One student in his experience report mentioned that professional
programmers should spend extra time on making their stuff usable and easily
Le 2010-11-16 à 20:55, Chuck Hill a écrit :
On Nov 16, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 17 Nov 2010, at 11:43, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
One student in his experience report mentioned that professional
programmers should spend extra time on
On Nov 16, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
Le 2010-11-16 à 20:55, Chuck Hill a écrit :
I suspect that most people using WO don't care about the cool factor so they
don't spend a lot of time trying to push it. Most of us have been around
long enough to know to disbelieve stories of
Hi Chuck and Pascal;
...and a road map, that might attract people to pitch in and do something. Or
not.
Without wanting to start a long thread on the matter, I imagine that any
level of transparency on the future of this technology would improve
the level of community involvement.
On Nov 16, 2010, at 7:12 PM, Andrew Lindesay wrote:
Hi Chuck and Pascal;
...and a road map, that might attract people to pitch in and do something.
Or not.
Without wanting to start a long thread on the matter, I imagine that any
level of transparency on the future of this technology
The best marketing is making a better product - either technically or with
improved documentation, accessibility, etc.
I know that's wrong, at least as far as marketers are concerned. Marketeers are
like lawyers - they get paid to defend people and make them look their best
even if they are
WebObjects has been where it is since Apple's acquisition of NeXT. NeXT was
banking on WebObjects as its future, just like BEA WebLogic, SliverStream, blah
blah. WebObjects was $50K per CPU. NeXT had a large enterprise sales force
for WebObjects and there was a large consulting business
Definitely not wasted time. I pushed really hard and got my company to give us
the go ahead on WO this year. It was a hard enough sell to begin with, but if
there was no one updating anything, it would be even worse. The more active
the community is, the more alive WO stays. By letting
On 17/11/2010, at 1:31 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
And maybe because it's only a very small group of people who try to do some
marketing. Counting the time I took to cleanup the wiki, WOWODC
organization, WOWODC presentations, wocommunity.org,
On Nov 16, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Michael Gargano wrote:
Definitely not wasted time. I pushed really hard and got my company to give
us the go ahead on WO this year. It was a hard enough sell to begin with,
but if there was no one updating anything, it would be even worse. The more
active
On Nov 16, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Paul D Yu wrote:
All the upgrades to WOnder that's happened recently, where did that come
from? If certain people at certain companies did not get support from a
certain fruit company financially, would there have been all these upgrades
and new capabilities?
On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Paul Hoadley wrote:
On 17/11/2010, at 1:31 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
And maybe because it's only a very small group of people who try to do some
marketing. Counting the time I took to cleanup the wiki, WOWODC
On 17/11/2010, at 4:04 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
Maybe we need a Jira space setup for the Wiki?
I think that's a great idea. Sometimes I know how to fix the Wiki when there
is incorrect, stale or contradictory information, so I jump in and do it.
Other times, I know something is wrong, but I
Possibly.
Another thing I think the community needs (I think I put this in the survey) is
a structured set of video tutorials that take you through learning WO and
Wonder. I'm hanging in there, but there is so much stuff, half the time I tell
myself I know someone must have made doing this
(Not that I'm doing any WO these days, but I still like to follow.)
One thing that has always worried me about scalability is keeping the per user
application state on the server in WOSession. Knowing more about REST now,
this is very unrestful and not stateless, which means will not scale.
On 2010-11-15, at 7:09 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
(Not that I'm doing any WO these days, but I still like to follow.)
One thing that has always worried me about scalability is keeping the per
user application state on the server in WOSession. Knowing more about REST
now, this is very
On 16 Nov 2010, at 11:35, David LeBer wrote:
On 2010-11-15, at 7:09 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
(Not that I'm doing any WO these days, but I still like to follow.)
One thing that has always worried me about scalability is keeping the per
user application state on the server in WOSession.
On Nov 15, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
(Not that I'm doing any WO these days, but I still like to follow.)
One thing that has always worried me about scalability is keeping the per
user application state on the server in WOSession. Knowing more about REST
now, this is very
On Nov 15, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 11:35, David LeBer wrote:
On 2010-11-15, at 7:09 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
(Not that I'm doing any WO these days, but I still like to follow.)
One thing that has always worried me about scalability is keeping the per
I think it's also very much worth pointing out that client-side state has huge
implications for security; as developers we basically should not trust anything
that is supplied to us by the client. For any non-trivial app that actually
requires session state be stored, the chances are high that
On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
The moral of the story is that every technology sucks, so you might as well
just build it fast so it can suck in production faster and you can move on
with your life.
I hate it when he is right.
--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant
On 16 Nov 2010, at 12:02, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 11:35, David LeBer wrote:
On 2010-11-15, at 7:09 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
(Not that I'm doing any WO these days, but I still like to follow.)
One thing that has always
On 16 Nov 2010, at 12:23, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
The moral of the story is that every technology sucks, so you might as well
just build it fast so it can suck in production faster and you can move on
with your life.
I hate it when he is right.
Le 2010-11-15 à 20:33, Ian Joyner a écrit :
On 16 Nov 2010, at 12:23, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
The moral of the story is that every technology sucks, so you might as well
just build it fast so it can suck in production faster and you can move on
I agree with this too. Problem or fixed complexity must be dealt with somewhere
in the system, and arguments often abound as to where that should be done
(almost always without people recognizing that fact). I wrote on that recently
too:
http://www.ianjoyner.name/Ian_Joyner/Complexity.html
so
I think quickly has two interpretations ... There's quickly from knowing
nothing about the technology and starting an app from scratch and there's
quickly from understanding the technology and starting an app from scratch.
If you interpret quickly as not knowing anything at ALL, it's probably
That's a good distinction about quickly. Seems most get a kick from the first
learning of something to get it quickly happening. Hence
lowest-common-denominator languages like BASIC become popular. It's good to get
people into things quickly, as long as they get the intellectual impetus to
Yeah. I heard it fro chuck first in san Francisco wowodc when he said ... I
better drink the REST of my beer fast and get another one before the REST of
the David group drink all of the beer
Regards, Kieran.
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:33 PM, Ian Joyner ianjoy...@me.com wrote:
By the way, I think
That is how I recall it.
On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
Yeah. I heard it fro chuck first in san Francisco wowodc when he said ... I
better drink the REST of my beer fast and get another one before the REST of
the David group drink all of the beer
Regards, Kieran.
On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 12:02, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 11:35, David LeBer wrote:
On 2010-11-15, at 7:09 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
(Not that I'm doing any WO these days, but I still
On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:33 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 12:23, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
The moral of the story is that every technology sucks, so you might as well
just build it fast so it can suck in production faster and you can move
On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
I agree with this too. Problem or fixed complexity must be dealt with
somewhere in the system, and arguments often abound as to where that should
be done (almost always without people recognizing that fact). I wrote on that
recently too:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
That's a good distinction about quickly. Seems most get a kick from the first
learning of something to get it quickly happening. Hence
lowest-common-denominator languages like BASIC become popular. It's good to
get people into things quickly,
lol
Is that out of experience? ;)
I'm going to echo Mike's sentiment slightly differently: Building a successful
site like Twitter, Facebook (or iTunes) takes great developers and good
practices first and foremost. That's going to determine success more so than
your choice of language (e.g:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 14:40, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 12:02, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 11:35, David LeBer wrote:
On 2010-11-15, at 7:09 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
On 16 Nov 2010, at 14:52, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
That's a good distinction about quickly. Seems most get a kick from the
first learning of something to get it quickly happening. Hence
lowest-common-denominator languages like BASIC become
72 matches
Mail list logo
