Apple releases WebObjects as a free application

Discussions

News: Apple releases WebObjects as a free application

  1. Apple has decided to make WebObjects available for free within its Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" developer tools.

    WebObjects is a component-based web framework written in Java, somewhat similar to Tapestry, with the addition of O/R mapping and web services.

    WebObjects 5.3 now ships with Xcode v2.1 and needs Mac OS X 10.4 to run.

    WebObjects' bundling with Xcode has caused some insiders to speculate that Apple is moving its web site from WebObjects to a more standard J2EE platform.

    Threaded Messages (39)

  2. From $50K to free[ Go to top ]

    I know a company who paid 50K plus travel and training for 4 people. Time...
  3. expirience with WO[ Go to top ]

    I have an expirience with WO 4.x development and it's definitely negative. The main thing is memory leaks problems that were it that release, so we've spent a lot of time releasing few hard-loaded applications but they were very unstable and the problem was recognized quite late, when a lot of code was done.
    Also development tools are very unstable - we used Windows tools for development and the applications were deployed on Solaris. I was very hapy when we decided to change our tools to BEA's and JBoss. I can remember WO development only as a nightmare. I'm very sad of our customer who paid $50K for absolutely raw and useless technology.
  4. expirience with WO[ Go to top ]

    I have an expirience with WO 4.x development and it's definitely negative. The main thing is memory leaks problems that were it that release, so we've spent a lot of time releasing few hard-loaded applications but they were very unstable and the problem was recognized quite late, when a lot of code was done.Also development tools are very unstable - we used Windows tools for development and the applications were deployed on Solaris. I was very hapy when we decided to change our tools to BEA's and JBoss. I can remember WO development only as a nightmare. I'm very sad of our customer who paid $50K for absolutely raw and useless technology.

    Umm, like, MS-DOS was crap.
  5. First of all web objects is an intrusive framework that requires your objects to be inherited from some base class if you want them to be used through the framework. It has little support for Java collections, a lot of luggage to carry from its initial implementation before they switched to java (the Ns prefix for instance) and other strange artifacts. It also requires code generation; the IDE is a lot behind.
    ORM is nice and other frameworks had to learn from it (Hibernate for sure) but now there are better ways: POJO persistence and non-intrusive frameworks.
    EOModeler is used to specify the entities to be persisted but it generates some very complicated mapping files that are not even database independent since you have problems porting database types. Also the mapping files are in some strange format and only a few databases are supported.
    Some J2EE compatibility is claimed but I do NOT understand which is what are they referring to. Can anyone explain?
    It is claimed that it is platform independent…OK…but the Windows support is miserable and incomplete especially the GUI of the development tools.
    Web objects is RAD but I think there are faster simpler ways to perform ORM mappings directly in XML (I am sure that is faster for Hibernate).
    Maybe when it was initially launched WO was ahead of everything else but now is not the case.
    There are other issues: lack of good documentation, small user base, strange error messages that leave you in the dark and other small annoyances that make your day.
    I think this move is the last one in a products life before it is history.

    Cheers to you all!
  6. First of all web objects is an intrusive framework that requires your objects to be inherited from some base class if you want them to be used through the framework.

    That's true, but intrusive sounds pretty strong. It's one of the standard approaches to providing services (e.g. .Net uses it with ServicedComponents).
    It has little support for Java collections

    The latest release provides support for the Java collection API.
    a lot of luggage to carry from its initial implementation before they switched to java (the Ns prefix for instance) and other strange artifacts.

    I'd hardly call a prefix "luggage." As well, some of the "luggage" (like Key Value Coding) is great stuff!
    It also requires code generation;

    Wrong. The only code that WebObjects generates is a couple of skeleton classes (to save you time ...).

    This is one of the true features of WebObjects - lack of code generation - compared to other platforms (eg. .Net).
    the IDE is a lot behind.

    Which IDE are you talking about. WebObjects development can be done with Xcode 2.1 (the *latest* IDE from Apple), with Eclipse, ... and any other Java IDE. The Windows IDE was deprecated long ago. Most Windows developers used Eclipse.
     EOModeler is used to specify the entities to be persisted but it generates some very complicated mapping files that are not even database independent since you have problems porting database types.
    Also the mapping files are in some strange format and only a few databases are supported.

    "Complicated mapping files"? I've never looked. One never needs to edit XML or any other mapping file since you can use the EOModeler GUI tool.

    Models can be made database independent if you wish - it is all based on JDBC. WebObjects work with pretty much any relational database.

    It used to require an adapter for each database but now, as I said, it works with any database that has JDBC drivers.
    Web objects is RAD but I think there are faster simpler ways to perform ORM mappings directly in XML (I am sure that is faster for Hibernate).

    If you think handcoding an XML file is faster than using an intuitive GUI tool - then sure. RAD is WebObjects is much more than just the OR mapping though. It's the whole development cycle.

    And that's not even considering the DirectToWeb, DirectToJavaClient and DirectToWebServices frameworks and tools (which are years ahead of anything else out there).
    lack of good documentation, small user base, strange error messages that leave you in the dark and other small annoyances that make your day.

    Great documentation.
    Great user base.
    Like most platforms, error messages could be better sometimes.
    I think this move is the last one in a products life before it is history.

    Ah now I see, you're spreading FUD.

    WebObjects is too good to miss.

    Cheers,
    Ashley.
  7. This is a great opportunity[ Go to top ]

    I've been a member of TSS for about 3 years, and almost never bother to post here even though I read it on an almost daily basis. But I feel I really must register how important it is that web application developers give WebObjects a look.

    A few years ago my employer decided to start delivering internal apps as web apps. They had a sophisticated development team of 6 people using Smalltalk, who had written the company's core line-of-business app (they wrote their own ORM to interface with Oracle). Two years later, most of the team had left, and I joined the remaining two developers. They were still struggling with Websphere. Over the course of another year I struggled along with them and with WebSphere. Websphere was a mess and a joke (both server and WSAD). The lead developer opted for Struts as the presentation framework. That was another mess and a joke. Finally, they got in IBM consultants, shelled out a couple of hundred thousand pounds in consultancy and server licenses. I left that job in disgust - I did not want to spend the rest of my working life mired in something like WebSphere. (I learned last week that the IT Director of that company is very disappointed with the perforamance of their WebSphere solution).

    When I left that job I started to look around for better alternatives, and found WebObjects. I could not believe that people were struggling with stuff like WebSphere and Struts.

    I totally endorse what Ashley Aitken says. Do yourself a favour and give WO tryout. Just read the docs to see what an elegant system it is - J2EE is the Frankenstein monster by comparison. I would not recommend even trying to use the Windows tools for WO though - buy an old mac of ebay if you have to (I've run Xcode and the WO tools on the lowest spec Mac Mini, and it is ok if you are just giving WO a test drive - there is no way WSAD would run on such low spec hardware). I'd never even used a Mac before I started with WO, but it was worth it (in fact, my Mac Mini is my favourite computer - silent, quiet, unobtrusive...) If you are not satisifed sell on the Mac Mini. At least you will have a new standard by which to judge every other web application framework (and I'm quite sure you will find most of them lacking in comparison), and the cost to yourself will be negligible.

    I don't find the OS X WO tools to be more noticeably buggy than most software. But I did find working with with WO via Eclipse and the WOLips plug-ins to be more difficult. As for it being a framework with 'luggage' - that is what a framework is! I cannot believe that anyone would compare the weight of carrying the WO framework with the weight of carrying the J2EE framework, without deciding that it was the J2EE framework that had too much luggage.
  8. buy an old mac of ebay if you have to

    Are you kidding ?
    If there's a single statement that will scare people off WO - this is it. :))
  9. I'm trying to offer my experiences of learning to use WebObjects. Another way of looking at this is that Apple are not giving away WO for free - but you can buy a new Mac and get WO with it :-)

    Let's see... IntelliJ IDE costs $499. WSAD costs $4000. Let's not even think about the prices for a WebSphere server - even ColdFusion costs about $2000. And for $499 you can get a Mac and Xcode and WebObjects... Of course, I'm not kidding.

    Xcode doesn't have some of the features of IntelliJ. But I've found programming in WebObjects vastly more productive than WSAD. WebObjects doesn't have all the features of WebSphere - but there must be hundreds of thousands of businesses that could benefit from using WebObjects in place of most other alternatives.

    I'll duck out of this forum now - I just wanted to try and help encourage some other people to realise that there is an alternative to both the plethora of poorly-designed frameworks and the resource-intensive and expensive application servers.

    If people think that buying a 2nd hand mac is too expensive to find out why there has been such consistent praise for WebObjects, that is their misfortune.
  10. Bernard, nobody says that $1000 for new computer with great OS and *PROBABLY* great dev. tool is too much.
    If somebody *NEEDS* WO, sure that's not too much.

    But for merely trying ?!

    If i could shell out a grand for each piece of software i want to try I would quit already :))
  11. I'm sorry for not being objective on web objects since I wrote the previous message from pure frustration: I had so much trouble porting an application written v 5.2 on Mac (with Openbase) on Windows (with SQL Server) due to a lot of small annoyances.

    Yes! WO had great features ahead of its time that inspired modern frameworks like Hibernate or Tapestry but I think those tools are now mature and have a life of their own. Forever grateful!

    Why I insisted so much on non-intrusiveness? Well because I had to make a mock application and I choose to do it with Swing and some XML persistence (for development speed reasons).

    How do I suppose to port some of the code from that mock to web objects since I have to inherit everything from EOGenericRecord and replace all java collections and related code with their WO counterparts?

    How do you unit test an intrusive framework? How can you reuse code somewhere else outside that framework? Is persistence really a service in that case? Please note that EJB's have the same problems.

    Why is the format of the generated files so important?
    Because the model contains roughly 100 entities that must be adapted to be persisted in several databases types. I don't want to perform that conversion by hand in EOModeler each time since is error prone and time consuming. Do you have a parser for that format because there are a lot of parsers for that format called XML?

    And yes I am talking about the tools for Windows that are outdated. I 'm glad they recognized that now and stopped supporting Windows versions. Everybody working on Windows versions should feel just great about it.

    It is possible that my problems are marginal and have no relevance for mainstream development. However is my opinion that web objects should be rewritten this time using a more standard Java. Maybe the IDE should be entirely an Eclipse plugin… No! I don’t want that ..I know is not possible due to pragmatic and political reasons…What I want is a RAD to integrate Spring, Hibernate, Tapestry and Axis.

    Adrian
  12. What I want is a RAD to integrate Spring, Hibernate, Tapestry and Axis.

    Try AppFuse: appfuse.dev.java.net
  13. Appfuse is not rad[ Go to top ]

    it is a kickstart, but RAD is more like the Sun Studio Creator or the Oracle JDeveloper.
    Apple still has the best price/feature tool currently, but as soon as exadel or myeclipse have gotten their act together or as soon as nitrox lowers its price, they will beat apples xdode, webojects left and right at least for web development.
    The studio creator does not reach it, because it uses plain jdbc for data access and misses lots of components, which are vital for a good app, also it misses a tiling mechanism from within the ide (which tiles or myfaces can deliver but both dont have a studio creator binding yet)
  14. Appfuse is not rad[ Go to top ]

    it is a kickstart, but RAD is more like the Sun Studio Creator or the Oracle JDeveloper.
    I disagree with you. RAD is rapid application development. Not necessarily Visual Application Development.

    Just because SUn Studio Creator and ОВумудщзук has Visual dev. environment, does not mean they are more RAD than say Ruby on Rails, which does not have any visual tools at all, yet allows to create web application in order of magnitude fatser than any of tools you mentioned.

    So APPFuse is a RAD because it not only allows me to kickstart webb apps, but also allows quickly put in place code for web pages, generated from Domain model. Build a sceleton of Application and fill it with business logic meat. Which is presicelly - RAD.
  15. Appfuse is not rad[ Go to top ]

    Hard to define what RAD is, for me in appfuse the tools for real rad are missing.
    Appfuse is really kickstart to me, with a good collection of patterns which you can follow for the subsequent app modules.
    For real RAD, appfuse misses form generators, which generate basic form and application skeletons from given model structures, it misses a form editor etc...
    Appfuse basically is a toolset, which most companies have in house, a shell application on which you can start to hack on, which follow standardized patterns, and therefore it is not far enough for my taste to be called RAD.
  16. expirience with WO[ Go to top ]

    I can confirm this with respect to the WO tools (editor and project manager) on Windows. I dont know if apple still supports them at all, but when I last looked they were running on top of some emulation layer and represented stat-of-the-art of the late 90ies in terms of usability and features.

    WO Builder (the WYSIWYG GUI editor) was nice at first, but once the HTML became more complex, was unable to cope. No experienced developer I knew would condsider it. I guess its still that way.

    In general, however, I agree that WO (and EOF) has many very advanced features and was/is a pioneer in terms of true object orientation. I definitely wished it was Open Source, too, so that remaining flaws (e.g., memory leaks) could be fixed much faster without apple having to dedicate development resources..

    christian
  17. expirience with WO[ Go to top ]

    I can confirm this with respect to the WO tools (editor and project manager) on Windows. I dont know if apple still supports them at all,
    No, the support was dropped shortly. These tools are far away from what you'd calling "state of the art"... It provides support for HTML 3.2, but nothing newer. The generated HTML is very hard to read and as far as I've read WO still won't generate standard compliant XHTML without customization of components.

    Michael
  18. WebObjects' bundling with Xcode has caused some insiders to speculate that Apple is moving its web site from WebObjects to a more standard J2EE platform.

    I'm sorry, maybe my English sensors are a bit off tonight, and I've had a glass of wine, but what does that even mean ?
    What's the correlation between Xcode and WebObjects and moving to "standard" J2EE ?
  19. Only for development[ Go to top ]

    Read the license agreement. It's only freely available for development. It is still definitely a commercial application and is still available for sale on the Apple store. Why would you think that they are moving away from it? Furthermore, why in the world would you call it a less standard J2EE platform? The only think I can read into this is that they want developers to be able to work with WebObjects without licensing... and, therefore, that they want to increase the number of people that are familiar with the application server.
  20. Only for development[ Go to top ]

    Read the license agreement. It's only freely available for development. It is still definitely a commercial application and is still available for sale on the Apple store. Why would you think that they are moving away from it? Furthermore, why in the world would you call it a less standard J2EE platform? The only think I can read into this is that they want developers to be able to work with WebObjects without licensing... and, therefore, that they want to increase the number of people that are familiar with the application server.

    Now _that_ makes sense.

    Joseph, what time is it there? Perhaps time for a break ? ;^)
  21. Only for development[ Go to top ]

    and, therefore, that they want to increase the number of people that are familiar with the application server.
    That's the one and only reason, I guess. WebObjects was "Apple's best kept secret". Some very busy websites are built with WO, e.g. Toyota or Deutsche Bank Homebanking and Apple's iTunes, but some major customers thought about leaving WO and turned over to Tapestry + Hibernate, for example. If you don't get any announcements about the future of a product, how can you make a decision to adopt such technology?

    But with this release (with only minor enhancements in the API and still the lack of Generics, for example, see the difference API-documentation on the developer's site) Apple is going to support only MacOS. The very old Windows-Tools, last shipped with WO 5.2 won't be improved, and there is no support for deployment on any other than Xserve, although it's still possible, but again, what about the future?

    Apple is a hardware selling company, and IMHO it is the wrong partner if you need definite statements about the way they are going.
  22. That's great![ Go to top ]

    I haven't been following WebObjects, but if nothing else it's a platform that's "been around" now for almost 10 years, and seems to have kept up.

    I don't know if the current WebObjects is very compatible with an application written againt the older WebObjects (for example, can you still code in Obj-C -- the original model).

    But now it appears to be a Java framework hosted on top of J2EE.

    At one point, WO was, indeed, $50K. But even today at $699, it's pretty cheap all said for deployment. Plus the fact that it can be deployed on anything, not just a Mac.

    Now, I know that Tapestry is probably it's closest competitor architecturally, but from an overall tools point of view, WO has it beat rather handily.

    What's also remarkable, if you think about it, is that Apple was able to take their original Obj-C code base, an lever it on to Java rather quickly overall. I think that says a lot about the original design of the system. It wouldn't surprise me if the original Obj-C source was converted mechanically for the first cut into Java. The basic object model would be very similar.
  23. That's great![ Go to top ]

    As far as I can remember, like at least 6 months ago, WebObjects was "j2ee compatible".
  24. Come on apple, it is time to open source it.
    Give it to us and watch is killing JSP and .NET crap.

    So sad, Apple still has not learned its lesson.
  25. We need open source for windows[ Go to top ]

    NEEDS Mac OSX 10.4 to run? Apple is not know for making good servers...
  26. Apple servers....[ Go to top ]

    If you think that Apple is not making good servers you probably have not looked at Apple's Mac OS X Server OS or the current Xserve G5 servers. Xserves are powerful but relatively inexpensive; Considering that Server OS with unlimited client access is included in the price of the box and it contains also many of the usual necessities preinstalled (e.g. Apache, OpenSSL, JBoss, Axis, mail services, ...). It's just that Apple does not promote these boxes and does not seem to like to sell them to enterprise customers. (Which is just 'the Apple way' for working with Any server product.)
  27. Howdy All,

    Just to clear up some confusion (Apple doesn't help in this regard and the final license agreement still needs to beewritten) with regards to the newly announced WebObjects 5.3.

    Apple has made WebObjects a part of its core development suite that is called Xcode (confusing because that is also the name of the IDE). WebObjects now comes for free with every copy of MacOSX (but it is an additional install because Joe consumer doesn't need it installed).

    The license is for development and deployment, but deployment is only supported on MacOSX Client / Server. It comes preinstalled on MacOSX Server. That said, it should work fine on other platforms because it is pure Java (there are currently no MacOSX dependencies).

    If you haven't checked out WebObjects you should do it ASAP. It provides a wonderful Web presentation and control framework (WOF) and a powerful and mature object-relational mapping framework (EOF). Each of which was the original inspiration for Tapestry and Cayenne respectively.

    The developer tools also allow very high level development - WebObject Builder for constructing the Web pages (without having to "echo HTML") and EOModeller for constructing the object-relational mapping (or reverse engineering one from a legacy database).

    It, however, goes a lot further than that by providing some other higher-level rapid-development frameworks (DirectTo*) for building browser-based, or Java client or Web services applications. These are truely amazing technologies - years ahead of their time (like the original WO was).

    I can't believe people go on so much about Ruby on Rails. From what I've seen that's kindergarten stuff compared to DirectToWeb, DirectToJavaClient and DirectToWebServices. Whenever, I demonstrate these technologies people are just stunned by what they can do!

    Its quite impressive to see a fully-scalable n-tier enterprise application with a fully-customisable Web or Java presentation layer (customisable without any HTML or Java coding, although it does not preclude that) developed in around 10 minutes (from a legacy relational database).

    There are also open source projects that provide additional frameworks (Project WONDER) and developer sites with code samples and tips and hints(e.g. WOCode), mailing lists, and a great community of developers (that is only going to get bigger now that WO is free).

    Cheers,
    Ashley.

    PS Older versions may still be for sale because they are supported cross-platform deployment. But I think they will go away real soon ...
  28. I've spent 10 minutes on the WO product description pages and was truly blown away.
    I never could figure out why this WO technology isn't hyped or pushed harder; everyone I've heard or seen talking/writing about it is so very pro and positive about it, but at the same time very few people seem to know about it.
  29. lousy timing[ Go to top ]

    I kinda recognize the "Apple-pattern here". Like with many other Apple products, it was a technical pioneer but a political disaster. WO was ahead of the curve (featuring this level of ORM for one, clever vertikal integration for another one) but should they have thrown it into public much earlier, not only the product would have evolved and community-supported, also adoption would have made it big. (not even mentioning Apple's credibility in the Java arena) Now, it's simply too late. Let's hope they've learned their lesson & don't make the same mistake for the n-th time with their recent decision to switch to intel processors. If they complain about market share (16% base of user base, 3 to 4% of sold volumes), they now have a golden opportunity to get rid of the pattern!
  30. lousy timing[ Go to top ]

    I kinda recognize the "Apple-pattern here". Like with many other Apple products, it was a technical pioneer but a political disaster.

    Apple has a lot going for it, but somehow they always fail to excite me. They play like an autistic child, in their own world, creating nifty toys but they do not share with other kids. They bore me.
  31. lousy timing[ Go to top ]

    Apple has a lot going for it, but somehow they always fail to excite me. They play like an autistic child, in their own world, creating nifty toys but they do not share with other kids. They bore me.
    Mmmm. Perhaps that's a little unfair today. That was certainly true in their pre-OSX era, but with OSX, there is at least a mentality shift. They choose for open standards (QuickTime, Printing, Networking, e.g.), open source their kernel (Darwin is even much more than that), adopt standards to build even their own OS (PDF, OpenGL, XML config everywhere, ...) and now even Intel processors. (so not only software) Don't expect a company spirit to shift 180° overnight. They're heading in a fine direction, yet me too, I'd like to see it move faster!!
    And see them commit where they can. E.g. I would love to see Apple itself contribute to OpenOffice for OSX, to Eclipse for all those Java devs on the platform etc etc. It would make our lives a lot easier and the platform a joy to use. It's in their own interest. Haven't see too many java devs get a job stating they know XCode very well. :-)
  32. I am currently working with webobjects 5.2.3 and jboss 4.0.1.

    This is the first time I use WebObjects and I must say I like it. I am not using the EO framework (using hivemind + hibernate instead), only the GUI framework.

    We have had some problems mainly due to classloading issues. IMHO WebObjects framework is ready to "ear" deployment (with some constraints).

    I would really like Apple to free it's code. I think it's the only way that the framework would keep up with open source frameworks. They should also improve the doco too.

    Charly
  33. WebObjects invented ORM[ Go to top ]

    I've used WebObjects, but on a few fairly small projects, and it's some years ago. I remember it was just ported to MacOS X, so the EO Modeler interface was still a bit rough. But hey, WebObjects definitely wrote history in that it was the first framework, as far as I know, that literally invented ORM! I remember the tutorial had a firm ORM groove, with statement like "never write a line of SQL again", in I think it was 2001. Back then, at least in my circles, this idea was completely new!
  34. more on WO history[ Go to top ]

    to make this discussion complete, the original roots of WebObjects must be mentioned as well: the venerable NeXT operating system, which powered the famous NeXT cube. As far as I know, EOF and the basic concepts underlying WO were already part of the application development infrastructure of NeXT OS.

    The original product was geared at "traditional" rich client development - "webification" happened after apple bought NeXT.

    christian
  35. Wrong, I wonder what TSS[ Go to top ]

    The original product was geared at "traditional" rich client development - "webification" happened after apple bought NeXT.christian

    NO ! NeXT released WebObjects well before it was bought by Apple. I would encourage all readers to read up the history and usage of WebObjects:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects

    In general, I'm amazed what how uninformed some posters here at TSS are, isn't this site for Java pros (?).
     
    - The Windows dev tools are indeed outdated, try using the Mac versions on xCode please.
    If you need Windows machines: There are WebObjects plugins for Eclipse 3.x if you want to develop on other platforms than OS X here:
    http://www.objectstyle.org/woproject/ (not yet for 5.3)

    - "WebObjects is a component-based web framework written in Java, somewhat similar to Tapestry,"
    Nice try rewriting history. Would be the same as saying 'the Mac OS UI is similar to Windows 3.1". The Tapestry project was started because the author was curious how WebObjects worked.
     
    - WebObjects not scaling well or buggy ? The iTunes Music Store has sold 430+ million songs and counting. Most of the readers are probably familiar with the application. Look at the URLs next time you use the iTunes Music Store. The complete backend is written in WebObjects...

    Sorry to repeat, but please go here and read about WebObjects history and usage:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects

    Wikipedia also includes a couple of good starting points for interested developers such as documentation, sample code at WOCode.com and Project WONDER...
  36. Back in ‘the day’ it had something going for it but last time I played with WO(5.1), it had bugs in the view builder that apparently had been lingering for years. The HTML it outputted was very dated and the windows IDE reminded me of Win 3.1 – not even code completion!

    I'm sure at one time wagon wheels were ahead of their time as well...

    WO users (as it appeared to me,) seem to be apologist for the technology:

    “Yea, it so great … oh, just ignore that bug.”
  37. Back in ‘the day’ it had something going for it but last time I played with WO(5.1), it had bugs in the view builder that apparently had been lingering for years...

    Sigh, why do I even bother to add the URLs ? Wo 5.1 was released in January 2002, quite an age for software.

    I'm not a WebObjects apologist, but I hate when people talk about shortcomings from software packages they haven't looked at for years or about outdated versions.

    Would you criticize Windows for Windows ME bugs if you use OS X 10.4 ? Try Windows XP with SP2 for a fair comparison.

    Same with WebObjects. Use and criticize WO 5.2.4 or 5.3

    The new WO 5.3 generates correct HTML 4.0.1.

    Download the new 5.3 version in a few weeks (it still has a few bugs and deployment version is forthcoming and post then.
  38. Fact of life is, now tapestry and hibernate are there as alternates and same cases better solution too.

    Only way for Apple to compete is open source. Otherwise its going to die doesn't matter who elegant solution it is.

    But as usual Apples marketing want to live in their small pond with one of best gem in their hand.
  39. Tapestry+Hibernate[ Go to top ]

    Tapestry+Hibernate is better than WO at least for pure webapps, but face it, you dont get tools with both of those solutions, you can get some tools, but non of them are as far reaching as webobjects. JSF is not as far as Tapestry, you have to add myfaces, or Tiles to the mix, to get something like Webobjects, but with JSF you at least have a chance to get the tools which are as far as webobjects is, but most of them are more expensive than buying a mac mini for development.
    Webobjects for now has its place, but if apple does not get off its high horse and does some significant improvement, it will be pushed from top spot by a combination of eclipse+jsf 2.0+ ejb30/hibernate/jdo at least in the web development league, things are moving very fast currently at the low cost jsf range, and soon all mechanisms will be in place within a better java ide than actually xcode really is (xcode is very lousy for java development, it still is choice#1 however because eclipse is dog slow on a mac)
  40. Dear, I am new to Webobjects and now i have to prepare the Architecture Document for the same. Plan to use MVC, can use MVC Architecture for Webobjects Applications>.