Re: Testing WO code

Howdy Mark (et al.),

On 02/08/2005, at 12:55 PM, Mark Doyle wrote:

> I am going to invite Lenny to comment here (I don't think he reads  
> webobjects-talk)... However, we have pretty much gone down the path  
> of transitioning from WebObjects/EOF to WebObjects/Hibernate/Spring

I'm interested in this for another reason (than unit testing,  
although that is important too).

I've found other things that seem comparable (and better in some ways  
to EOF, although probably not as mature) - namely, Hibernate, various  
JDO implementations (including JPOX), and, of course, Cayenne.

However, from what I've seen Tapestry has some extra complexity (and  
different design choices) than WebObjects, JSF seems to have broader  
goals, and Wicket is quite new.

Hence, the WebObjects framework still seems to be one of the most  
mature and functional Web frameworks.  Of course, others will  
disagree (but I'm not keen at this point to argue that).

My email is to ask more about this:

>  The integration of Spring/Hibernate into WebObjects isn't exactly  
> straightforward, but our applications that have been transitioned  
> are faster, have a smaller memory footprint, and scale much better  
> (easier to deploy across multiple machines for instance).

Why was integration difficult?

Why did you feel the need to use Spring?  Surely, Hibernate could  
just replace EOF.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Cheers,
Ashley.

PS I haven't used Tapestry or Wicket as yet, and have only done a  
little JSF using Java Studio Creator (or whatever it is called).  My  
comments are based mainly on research and others comments.

--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
mrhatken at mac dot com
Skype Name: MrHatken (GMT + 8 Hours!)