Re: Necromail

Hi

I have not meant to interrupt your discussion, but would like to note that 
most of webobjects discussions have been moved to this mailing list 
[email protected].  What I know so far is the Obj-C and Java 
bridge has been removed from WebObjects.

It is surprised that you guys still using this email list, and it is well 
back since 2006 : )

Cheers

Cheong Hee

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Willoughby" <[email protected]>
To: "Michael_google gmail_Gersten" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Necromail


> On Feb 15, 2009, at 22:06, Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote:
>>> Is EOF still available for Apple?  I must admit that I don't even  know. 
>>> For
>>> a while, I had a printout of a web page on Apple's site which  offered 
>>> the
>>> legacy ObjC WebObjects and EOF for sale.  I doubt that offer is still
>>> available.
>>
>> I thought WebObjects, EOF, etc., was all on the developer's stuff, and
>> one of the optional installs even in 10.5. I know I got the frameworks
>> installed when I installled all those developers stuff (but watch it
>> just be the runtime and not the compilation stuff :-).
>
> Ah, I may be focused on the Objective C implementation of WO and EOF. 
> Perhaps the Java implementation is still there.
>
>
>>> EOF remains an example both of good object-oriented design, and of  the
>>> advantages of Objective C.  I don't think that C++ or Java or C#  can 
>>> handle
>>> the polymorphism inherent in the multiples layers of WebObjects  built 
>>> on EOF
>>> built on Foundation.  Last I heard, the Java version of EOF had to 
>>> rewrite
>>> the entire stack as a monolithic code base - which seems to make it 
>>> harder
>>> to share the same code between desktop and web applications.  So  much 
>>> for
>>> reusable code...
>>
>> I thought that the only thing Java could not handle was the "object's
>> 'self' class will change", and that was "mostly" solved by the "probe"
>> calls that you make when coding in java.
>
> As I understood, the lack of categories in Java means that the  Foundation 
> classes could not be extended in the polymorphic manner  that they are in 
> Objective C, and the EOF classes could not be  extended for WebObjects. 
> Since Foundation classes only create other  Foundation classes, the use of 
> categories allows EOF to reuse  Foundation behavior to create EOF class 
> instances.  Same thing at the  WO level where EOF is extended to create WO 
> objects without  recompiling any of the underlying code.  In the ObjC 
> implementation,  the Foundation Framework, Enterprise Objects Framework, 
> and WebObjects  Framework are each usable alone or in concert.  I was left 
> with the  impression that the Java implementation merely implemented the 
> top  level WO classes without the ability to reuse the lower building 
> blocks.
>
>> Beyond that, I thought that the Java bridge took care of everything
>> else. Err, does the Bridge still work?
>
> I think they dropped the Bridge at the same time they dropped support  for 
> Objective C.
>
> However, most of the above is just guesswork and conjecture.  It's  like 
> piecing together ancient history at this point (I hope not).
>
> Brian Willoughby
> Sound Consulting
>
> _______________________________________________
> EOF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/eof
>