macOS WebObjects, or GNUstepWeb or...

[cblackburn]

Hey everyone,

I'm developing a database app for a client and they want some web access. Not insanely big but enough for me to want to use something more than a few loosely connected PHP scripts. WebObjects is all written in Java now rather than Objective-C, but that means that it is more cross platform. I am also hearing that WebObjects is being depricated??, well one page says completely depricated and the other one says the development tools are being depricated but not the server. Then again I could use GNUstepWeb to get Objective-Cness but I'm not sure how good this is as a platform.

Suggestions on a postcard please ...

Chris

 

[wrc fan]

Unless your client has expressly wished for some esoteric web development platform, I would recommend using something more popular and well known that you know will be widely supported in the future (if I were your client I would rather have something written in "a few loosely connected PHP scripts" that I know will work with almost any server on almost any platform for the foreseeable future). Although, if you want to use Java because you know how to program with it, just use jsp and run tomcat as that is widely supported.

 

[GeeYouEye]

Go ahead and use WebObjects 5.3.x, unless you can get your hands on a copy of 4.5.1.

WebObjects is *not* some esoteric web platform, and in fact predates just about every other one. While explicit support for it is pretty minimal ATM, you can deploy using J2EE or Tomcat as well.

 

[wrc fan]

WebObjects is *not* some esoteric web platform, and in fact predates just about every other one.

Age has nothing to do with whether something is esoteric or not. The definition of esoteric: intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. That sounds like WebObjects to me. It doesn't mean it's not a good platform, it just means it's less used and therefore less supported, which you even state yourself.

 

[slooksterPSV]

You can use Java to make program what you are trying to do. I'm sure you could also use like FLTK (GUI Interface, cross platform), C++, and some sockets to connect to your database and get the data you need. What is your database written in? How does it handle data? Is it web-based or app based like access (as an example)?

 

[cblackburn]

What is your database written in? How does it handle data? Is it web-based or app based like access (as an example)?

The main database is handled by PostgreSQL and the main client program is written in Cocoa/Obj-C. The client just wants some of his customers to be able to access a portion of the data remotely via a web interface.

Chris

 

[GeeYouEye]

Age has nothing to do with whether something is esoteric or not. The definition of esoteric: intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. That sounds like WebObjects to me.

Doesn't sound like WebObjects to me at all. It is, in fact, targeted at a much larger audience than many other web app stacks: traditional application developers, as well as J2EE, Struts, and other developers. Not so much at the PHP and Python crowd, and it'd be more accurate to say that Ruby on Rails was targeted at the WebObjects crowd than the other way around.

It doesn't mean it's not a good platform, it just means it's less used and therefore less supported, which you even state yourself.

There used to be a list of major websites using WebObjects... even the Dell online store used to. The list was by no means as long as ASP or PHP, but I suspect there's a larger number of commercial WebObjects sites than there are commercial Ruby on Rails sites.

 

[peteMG]

The main database is handled by PostgreSQL and the main client program is written in Cocoa/Obj-C. The client just wants some of his customers to be able to access a portion of the data remotely via a web interface.

I've got to recommend Ruby and the Rails framework for this. You won't spend time replicating your schema into an object model, because Rails is aware of the schema and infers your class attributes from it; also, the scaffolding functionality will let you get an initial web view up extremely rapidly. Like a couple of hours fast. Really. Then you add some authorization and authentication, and tune your data views, and you're good to go. I'd make a bid for the work myself.

I've done a couple projects with it now - some small, two rather large - and absolutely love it. I developed in PHP for 6 years, and as far as I'm concerned the Rails framework does everything right when it comes to writing a database-centric web app.

 

[cblackburn]

I developed in PHP for 6 years, and as far as I'm concerned the Rails framework does everything right when it comes to writing a database-centric web app.

I have to say, having looked at some of the demonstration videos, Ruby is looking more and more friendly. I'll give it a look

Chris

 

[wrc fan]

There used to be a list of major websites using WebObjects...

I would be interested to know the number of high profile websites (outside of Apple) that have been developed using WebObjects in the past 2 years. While yes, it's probably more than Rails (as I can't really think of any... the most high profile ones are undoubtedly those of 37 signals so they can't count), I was not in anyway suggesting that Rails is less esoteric than WebObjects since I hadn't even mentioned it (heck, it's probably even more so, since it requires one to learn Ruby which is a lot less known than Java). Though, since you brought it up, I do think the Rails user base is going to grow much larger than that of WebObjects in the next few years.