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
sophisticated Application framework that died from neglect and
eventually disappeared despite Apple using it for many of its own
apps. A GUI editor (forgot the name) was also part of the toolchain
and it too was eventually neglected by Apple. Faced with the
obsolescence of the tool, a third party developed from scratch a
better replacement and sold it (named AdLib). I do not know if it
was profitable, but every body I knew switched to it for the few
bug fixes and the few new features it offered. Apple eventually
bought the application and distributed it...
Like everything, it will survive on its own merit, or not. When
Apple finds something better to run iTunes etc. on, they will drop
it. When I find something that let's me develop more functionality,
faster then I will drop it. I hope I am not using this same
technology for the next twenty years.
I do not understand why there has to be a business case for
developing a WOBuilder replacement ? that it must be absolutely
profitable ? I'm curious to see the numbers that supported the
development of WOLips, Project Wonder ??? Should I assume that
these were profitable endeavors ! To me, they certainly seem
equally large/serious development efforts, probably even more than
a WOBuilder replacement.
But you are comparing apples and oranges there. Look at the
history. These projects were not developed, they _grew_. Wonder was
just a couple of frameworks at first and in Objective-C. As
developers have needed functionality over the years they created it
for themselves and generously donated it to all in the form of a
contribution to Wonder. The same goes for WOLips. Andrus Adamchik
started the project around 2001 as a set of tools to build WebObjects
projects independent from platform and IDE based on Apache Ant
technology. It was all command line scripts then. But it worked and
it was good enough to get people going on it. Other people wanted
more and so they built it. Emily Bache and Ulrich Koester helped to
flesh out project and add core Ant tasks in the early years. Ulrich
started the WOLips Eclipse plugin which has evolved into what you now
see. Harald Niesche developed the incremental builder which has
become the core of WOLips.
It really depends on how those who would developed it want to be
rewarded for their effort/contribution. It does not have to be
free, neither does it have to make commercial sense.
What I see is this: The tools we have are the product of people who
made them for themselves, over a long period of time, but were
gracious enough to share them. This WOBuilder replacement seems
different. Those who want this seem unwilling or unable to make it.
Which is part of the reason that I think it has to be a commercial
effort. The other part is that it needs to be pretty complete when
released otherwise it will be worse than none at all. Unlike the
early versions of what we now call WOLips, the shell of a GUI editor
is going to be pretty useless. So an incremental build out over
years does not seem feasible to me.
Chuck
--
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
