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

On 24/08/2006, at 10:40 PM, Bruce Fancher wrote:

>
> 1) "I'm going to build your project using this open source web  
> framework
> called Wicket (for example).  It's new and not that many people are  
> using it
> yet, but here's the web site and an article about it from JavaWorld."

Wicket actually looked interesting when I checked it out. Time will  
tell if it manages to maintain a sustainable level of interest given  
all the other Web frameworks fighting for attention.

> 2) "I'm going to build your project using this product from Apple  
> called
> WebObjects.  The developer tools are deprecated and only run well  
> on a Mac
> anyway, and there hasn't been a new major release in about five  
> years, but
> fortunately if I ever need to extend it I can just weave new  
> bytecodes in
> using AspectJ."

Now you are showing a little bias here.

You could have also said:

1) "I'm going to build your project using this open source web framework
called wicket (for example). There aren't any developer tools for it  
yet, and it hasn't
been out long so it's still at version 1 and evolving. There aren't  
many users, and there's
not much in the way of supporting libraries for it yet but  
fortunately if I need to extend it I can write it myself"

2) "I'm going to build your project using this product from Apple  
called WebObjects. It's
mature, has a large collection of open source libraries, and has been  
used by Financial Institutions, Universities, Government Agencies,  
Car Manufacturers, even Disney for many years. It's what Apple use to  
build the iTunes Music Store, here's the list of all the awards it's  
won over the last 10 years."

Getting back on the topic of WebObjects needing to be open sourced.  
One reason why this isn't necessarily true is that the overall design  
of the frameworks has always been with the knowledge that the  
developer can't change the source, so even if you did have access to  
it, you don't need to change it to extend the functionality. Fixing a  
bug on the other hand may be another story.

Seeya...Q

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:56 AM
> To: Bruce Fancher
> Cc: 'Marc Oesch'; [email protected]
> Subject: 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
>                      _______  /
>                              _\
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WebObjects-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk