I guess when I take a good look at Web Objects as a whole, I think of it as
this very well built, well organized, powerful application server with poor
documentation. What *could* happen is companies like SAMS Net, O'Reilly,
and whoever else could come along and save us all with wonderfully
descriptive reference books. But shouldn't the basic functions of all of
their classes be properly documented? Shouldn't at least half of the
hyperlinks work? Try finding info on some of the custom WO components...
like type in WODictionaryRepetition into the WOInfoCenter search. Hell, I
didn't even know there was such thing as a dictionary repetition.
Previously, I just hacked my way around it. I've taken both levels of
their training courses and during each, the documentation was quite the issue.
At 10:47 AM Friday 3/19/99 -0800, Jim Roepcke wrote:
>Let's not forget that Apple teaches two levels of week-long WebObjects
>courses, as do other companies.
>
>I bet the instructors have a very good feel for what newbies ask and don't
>grok early on, and successful ways to answer the questions that arise. I
>don't know if the instructors liase with the people who write the docs
>(maybe they're the same people, which would be great!) but I bet the
>instructors would be great at helping the documentation along.
>
>There really should be a nutshell book for WebObjects.
>
>And the UML diagrams would be very helpful too! Of course, why can't that
>be a 3rd party opportunity?
>
>Jim
Derek Eide
Web Programmer
EyeWire, Inc. ( http://www.eyewire.com )
(403) 750-4297
