Re: Open source WO (was: Apple, Microsoft, Java and the Web?)

On 24/08/2006, at 2:20 PM, Bruce Fancher wrote:

> Because without open sourcing it, it's effectively dead.

A dead product is a dead product, opensource or not. But WebObjects  
is not dead (neither is BSD before anyone asks); While apple keep  
using it internally and they keep releasing revisions to the public,  
it will continue to live on.

If WebObjects were to fade from favour at Apple, ignoring whatever  
they might choose to replace it with. It's Java, it works now, it  
will continue to work for years to come just as well as it does  
today. Even then there are AOP tools like GluonJ (or AspectJ) that  
let you add or replace functionality dynamically and projects like  
JOPE, Wotonomy and Cayenne waiting quietly for their chance to fill  
the role.

> I work for a company that does custom application development for  
> very large companies.
> We recently evaluated Java frameworks for a project.  If WebObjects  
> were
> open-sourced, I would have suggested that we use it for the  
> project, because
> it would make it a safe choice.

What makes open source projects "safe" is not just having the source  
code, but also the community that supports it and the availability of  
employable talent experienced at using it. But this has its downsides  
also, I wouldn't consider Tapestry a "safe" choice either at the  
moment because it has too much volatility, with each major revision  
bringing significantly differences to the previous one. That isn't to  
say it's a bad choice, only that it is similarly "unsafe" for a long  
life product.

WebObjects might not be opensource, but it's well documented, stable  
and highly extendable, Wonder is testament to this. The underlying  
question is however, what is it that WebObjects is lacking that could  
only be solved if it were an open source product? An even better  
question is what features/functionality is WebObjects lacking that  
makes it an any less capable product than the available alternatives?  
Can these features only to be implemented as part of the core  
frameworks, rather than extensions to what's already there? There is  
plenty that can be done, and has already been done, even without it  
being opensource.

What WebObjects lacks in spades is mindshare, marketing buzz and  
adoration by people who know nothing about it (and it's a product  
from Apple no less, inconceivable). Unfortunately WebObjects is to  
the App server world what NetBSD is to the Unix world, very mature,  
extremely capable, acknowledged by its peers, with a devoted  
following, but largely unknown to the vast majority.

> But do you think I'm going to suggest that
> we use a product that's owned by Apple and has no marketing behind it
> whatsoever?  Uh uh.

If you let product marketing decide what you should and shouldn't use  
then perhaps not. I have recently been through a similar exercise and  
was in the fortunate position of being able to pick the tools that  
were most suitable without having to justify their existence in the  
first place.

-- 
Seeya...Q

                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                           _____  /  Quinton Dolan - [email protected]
   __  __/  /   /   __/   /      /
      /    __  /   _/    /      /        Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
   __/  __/ __/ ____/   /   -  /            Ph: +61 419 729 806
                     _______  /
                             _\