Le 10 oct. 08 à 20:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Pascal, if it's not too late, I'd propose a few more: - Do you consider WO primarily as an application server, or as a development framework? - Do you find resistance to WebObjects framed as an implementation issue, a resource issue, or both? I add these because my perception is we're collectively making life even more difficult on ourselves by embracing the two deployment options: really bad servlet out of the box, or Monitor and wotaskd, which really undermines what I would consider the primary strength of WebObjects - that as a development framework. If Apple didn't have to put resources into supporting WO as an app server, perhaps we'd get more out of the framework, and seriously, there's very strong arguments from a management perspective (both IT and business) against even deploying WebObjects right now, for larger organizations anyway, and in the case when you have a growing business that absolutely needs to consider things like "how easy is it for us to find people that can develop using this and support the deployment against the much larger pool of talent using much more established technologies" type questions. Besides higher ed, not for profits, and single one off apps, WO has a market share on par with Apples market share for personal computers circa 1996, if it's even that good. We can kick and scream all we want about pointy haired managers, etc, but it doesn't change reality. Besides, it's not just the managers, it's pretty much every other interaction point in the rest of the world; developers, IT people. They feel the same way about using, managing wo as most of us would if we had to use struts and hibernate, except the numbers are in their favor. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear other peoples perceptions along these lines. This isn't meant to start some silly argument about how bad tomcat is, or how great Monitor is; in reality, neither is relevant.
I am working in a French company developping open source projects for the education market. We only use WO for legacy apps, or when we need a very urgent demo. Decisions, in the French education market, are very political. So WO, for us, as a development library means no partners, no approval, no money. WO as an app server is not even an issue. I am not sure that you guys, in the brave new world, understand how bureaucratic and political decisions are, here in Europe.
When we have a "non political project" (meaning we have a funding and we can use whatever techno), we are still very hard pressed by other projects, and we cannot run in all directions. We have project A, that forces us to use Spring MVC, and project B, where we could use WO (and would like to), but in the end, we will end up using Spring MVC (or whatever) for project B because we cannot invest in 40 solutions at the same time. One year ago, I naively responded to this thread by asking Apple to open source WO. But now, even if Apple had done it, my company would move away from it. We keep using it for existings apps (and this is a pleasure, specially because of all the things Wonder offers) but I think that there will be no new projects using it :(.
Keep in mind that our situation is a bit peculiar. What is true for us is not necesarily true for other companies. At least I hope so.
JPM _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
