Re: Necromail

Hola Brian et al.,

I'd been in such a nightmare since I got my hands on Leopard beta (NDA =20=

apart); until that, it was possible to write Cocoa/EOF apps with out =20
writing a single line of code in Java, just using Objective-C (see =20
e.g., =20
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:WebObjects/Web_Applications/=20
Development/Cocoa_EO_Applications )...

The best two approaches I know to replace EOF, so far, are GDL2 =97with =20=

the back-draw of depending on gnustep-make and gnustep-base=97 and =20
AJRDatabase. This last has two versions: the old one =20
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/ajrdatabase/ ) is almost complete... =20=

it just need an EOInterface layer and some adaptors (e.g., Sybase, =20
JDBC, ODBC or similar)... this can be a very good starting point; the =20=

newest one (cf. http://www.raftis.net/~alex/ ) seems to be more =20
complete and mature, but looks more difficult to use to port existing =20=

code (e.g., uses AJR and DB prefixes instead of NS and EO, =20
respectively, and depends on AJRFoundation).

So, if you will, we can try together such an enterprise...


On Feb 16, 2009, at 18:55, Brian Willoughby wrote:

> So, my next thought is this: Would it be possible to write EOF (and =20=

> WO) in ObjC as an open-source project?
>
> I really have no idea what the current state of affairs is for =20
> GNUstep, but I understand they had problems with complex and =20
> under-documented classes like NSBrowser.  Thus, GNUstep users never =20=

> seemed to get the full AppKit / Yellow Box / Cocoa experience.  I'd =20=

> hate to see the same lackadaisical situation for EOF, but it would be =20=

> better than nothing.
>
> Perhaps there is a way to create a database adaptor framework for =20
> CoreData?
>
> Ideas welcome.
>
> Bring Back EOF in Objective C !!!!
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2009, at 16:38, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 19:16, Brian Willoughby wrote:
>> Regarding the death of the excellent combination of ObjC and EOF, I =20=

>> believe we see a victim of the buzz word.  Everyone wanted Java on =20=

>> their web server, so developing in ObjC seemed like a non-feature.  =20=

>> First, a bridge was added to enable Java, then the ObjC side was =20
>> ignored.  By the time the product made the full transition to Java - =20=

>> purely to meet the buzz-word requirements - it was less of a product =20=

>> than it started.
>>
>> Personally, I don't think the Bridge alone would be enough.  Not if =20=

>> the core of WO and EOF were continued as Java objects.  I would =20
>> really like to see a Cocoa+ObjC framework which has the full =20
>> capabilities of EOF and WO.
>
> Totally agree. And it was a really stupid move, too. Because by the =20=

> time they did the Java thing, there were plenty of other Java Webapp =20=

> frameworks, so WO became an "also ran".
> Meanwhile, ObjC based WO/EOF had something no other framework ever =
had:
> a shared data model that could be used for desktop apps, client server =
=20
> apps and web apps, thus eliminating a whole slew of potential problems =
=20
> that happen when the same database is accessed from a variety of =20
> clients with ever-so-slightly different models of the data set.
> Nevermind the ability for code reuse, and what sort of things with =20
> iPhone client, EOF server apps would be possible now, you could kiss =20=

> the Blackberry goodbye in a corporate environment and custom apps. =20
> Instead everything is shoehorned into the web metaphor, and it =20
> basically sucks all around.
>
> Even Apple's stupid web based bug reporting tools is ten times =20
> inferior to BugNeXT.app from back in the day. Really stinks that this =20=

> is what's called "progress".
>
> Ronald
>
> _______________________________________________
> EOF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/eof