I don't have a good answer and have no idea where to start, really-- obviously,
Apple hasn't [yet] come up with an answer either. You are right in that WO
can do a terrific job of solving small scale problems that may have a high hit
rate. A few clicks in WOBuilder backed by a simple EOModel and a little bit
of business logic can do a tremendous amount.
But I don't know how that can be translated into a workable business model.
NeXT toyed briefly with the idea of having versions that had certain features
turned off-- i.e. no dynamic linking (which translates to no EO) or no EO (but
dynamic linking)-- in the 3.x days. I'm not sure what the results were.
There are lots and lots of options that actually do a passable-- and sometimes
quite good-- job of solving small problems. There are solutions in python
that are quite nice. If you can stomach the line noise like syntax of perl
and the more-obfuscation-is-better philosophy of the community, there are
numerous very functional solutions in perl. The Java servlet stuff is slow,
but quite capable.
b.bum
Jeroen Clarysse wrote:
> ok, you're right... no self-made app at $25K can do anything near WO (if
> you see that microsoft is throwing millions at their own server soft and
> can't do it properly...)
>
> the point I was trying to make is : what soft can I use for $10K projects
> that can not justify a $25K budget increase ?
>
> WebObjects simply can NOT justify its cost for small projects, but
> unfortunately, the 50tpm limit screws up these small projects (small
> projects do not generate less hits or transactions !)
>
> apple should realize that SMALL BUDGET != FEW TRANSACTIONS and come up with
> a financing scheme for small to medium projects.
>
> what alternatives do we have on OSX server besides WO that a $10K project
> can afford ?
> because : Put it like you want, but the majority of *small* developers can
> not compete in $100K+ deals. We have to live off off small deals, and apple
> is leaving us in the cold with its financing scheme.
>
> jeroen
