Le 2010-11-11 à 06:45, Anjo Krank a écrit : >>> To be clear: one of the selling points of Roo as no lock-in. You can use >>> any number of JPA providers, you get code generated which you can customize >>> pretty well via aspect-j (a part of which I would like to see in EO >>> generator so one remove the weird _Foo classes) and you get this without >>> any runtime jars at all. >> Yeah I've wondered whether we should do class rewriting for _Foo and maybe >> even EO's period, like Hibernate does. > > That'd be nice if it would be possible at all. On the other hand, EOs are > *not* beans, so I don't know if you can actually do this and still have all > the benefits they have from not being beans. But a bit of experimenting in > aspect-j would probably be fun. > >>> So it's not D2W, but it's probably good enough to be workable. And given a >>> certain company's abysmal track record in supporting enterprise software, >>> it *might* be good enough for some to be actually considered as an viable >>> alternative for WO/EOF. >> >> I was pretty turned off by the demo video when I watched it a few weeks ago >> ... They LOOOVVVEEE xml files. It looked pretty tedious. That said, if you >> have to pick something other than WO, I guess you're going to have to >> sacrifice in some way :) > > Well... and EO model in plist format isn't for the faint-hearted either. So > it's just a matter of having a reasonable editor (and have someone who writes > it). > > And Roo seemed to take care of most of the XML stuff for you (they have their > own IDE based on eclipse). > > That is *not* to say I'm advertising this at all or recommending it or > whatever. It's just something I stumbled across that has a few things I would > like to have: > > - JPA means deployment in app engine > - halfway-decent CRUD support > - halfway decent GWT/Ajax/JSON support > - servlet based -> failover, less state, etc > > Oh, and it's open-source :)
I have a question that I kept to myself for months, but let's go public. People talks about moving away from WO or even writing WO/EOF replacements. But AFAIK, Wonder shows that we can extend the core frameworks a lot. Sure, extending WO so that EOF become multi-threaded or anything like this would be a huge task, but from my point of view (a non-technical one), we can do a lot on top of WO to "fix" problems. And to me, it make more sense to extend WO than trying to rewrite it... I do like the fact that Ravi is trying different different things with WO, and that Vlad did a presentation about Groovy and WO at WOWODC. It show that we can use WO in many different cases. -- Pascal Robert [email protected] AIM/iChat : MacTICanada LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/macti Twitter : pascal_robert _______________________________________________ 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]
