Re: Necromail

Hello,

On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:51 AM, Ricardo 'Dino' Strausz wrote:

> Hola Brian et al.,
>
> I'd been in such a nightmare since I got my hands on Leopard beta =20
> (NDA apart); until that, it was possible to write Cocoa/EOF apps =20
> with out writing a single line of code in Java, just using Objective-=20=

> C (see e.g., =
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:WebObjects/Web_Applications/Devel=
opment/Cocoa_EO_Applications=20
>  )...
>
> The best two approaches I know to replace EOF, so far, are GDL2 =97=20
> with the back-draw of depending on gnustep-make and gnustep-base=97 =20=

> and AJRDatabase. This last has two versions: the old one =
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/ajrdatabase/=20
>  ) is almost complete... it just need an EOInterface layer and some =20=

> adaptors (e.g., Sybase, JDBC, ODBC or similar)... this can be a very =20=

> good starting point; the newest one (cf. http://www.raftis.net/=20
> ~alex/ ) seems to be more complete and mature, but looks more =20
> difficult to use to port existing code (e.g., uses AJR and DB =20
> prefixes instead of NS and EO, respectively, and depends on =20
> AJRFoundation).
>
> So, if you will, we can try together such an enterprise...


Version on Sourceforge is the newest one, but you need to use the =20
latest svn snapshot. Alex created the Sourceforge project from the =20
source you can get on his web page, AFAIK.

There was also another port of EOF, MulleEOF, done by Mulle-Kybernetik:
<http://www.mulle-kybernetik.com/weblog/2004/11/coding_eof.html>

I guess there are enough rewritings to avoid doing it one more time... =20=

I wish some more effort were brought to AJRDatabase :-)


Cheers!

St=E9phane

> 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 under-=20=

>> 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 =20=

>> be 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, =20=

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

>>> on their web server, so developing in ObjC seemed like a non-=20
>>> feature.  First, a bridge was added to enable Java, then the ObjC =20=

>>> side was ignored.  By the time the product made the full =20
>>> transition to Java - purely to meet the buzz-word requirements - =20
>>> it was less of a product than it started.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't think the Bridge alone would be enough.  Not =20
>>> if 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 =20
>> Webapp frameworks, so WO became an "also ran".
>> Meanwhile, ObjC based WO/EOF had something no other framework ever =20=

>> had:
>> a shared data model that could be used for desktop apps, client =20
>> server apps and web apps, thus eliminating a whole slew of =20
>> potential problems that happen when the same database is accessed =20
>> from a variety of clients with ever-so-slightly different models of =20=

>> 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 =20
>> kiss the Blackberry goodbye in a corporate environment and custom =20
>> apps. Instead everything is shoehorned into the web metaphor, and =20
>> it 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 =20
>> this is what's called "progress".
>>
>> Ronald
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EOF mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/eof
>
> _______________________________________________
> EOF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/eof