From jgilmorebaldwin at mac.com Sat Dec 1 09:44:41 2007 From: jgilmorebaldwin at mac.com (John Baldwin) Date: Sat Dec 1 09:45:47 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98566E42-44A7-43FC-BF6E-037E6B479E23@mac.com> From what I know, LINQ is a SQL-like language that can be applied to any data collection. It's a sort of DAL. It works against XML, arrays, databases, etc. So, for people familiar with SQL, and who need to do set manipulation against data in many (or unknown) formats, it's pretty powerful. But it's really quite different from EOF. LINQ is good for data manipulation across a wide array of data sources. I'll leave it up to others to declare what EOF is good at. :) John On Monday Nov 26, 2007 10:22 PM, at 10:22 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote: > On 27/11/2007, at 1:11 PM, Berney Bradley wrote: > >> I just saw that .Net 3.5 was released last week with the LINQ >> (Language Integrated Query) technology. How does WO stack up when >> compared to the latest from MS? >> >> I checked the wiki and it seems there is a lack of competitive >> analysis between WO and other technologies. Can anyone comment on >> why someone would choose WO over .Net, in light of the recent LINQ >> release? I'm looking for technical reasons, not emotional or >> political arguments ;-) > > From my cursory glance at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Integrated_Query > > LINQ is an sql-esq language construct for .Net. So you're > essentially writing sql in your code such as seen on the above page. > > WebObject's EOF, on the other hand, abstracts sql from you (unless > you need it) so you're always dealing with Objects. This document > may help... 'Working with EOF: > http://developer.apple.com/documentation/WebObjects/Enterprise_Objects/index.html > > with regards, > -- > > Lachlan Deck > _______________________________________________ > WebObjects-talk mailing list > WebObjects-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk From helge.hess at skyrix.com Sat Dec 1 11:37:07 2007 From: helge.hess at skyrix.com (Helge Hess) Date: Sat Dec 1 12:07:37 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27.11.2007, at 03:11, Berney Bradley wrote: > I just saw that .Net 3.5 was released last week with the LINQ > (Language Integrated Query) technology. How does WO stack up when > compared to the latest from MS? As far as I can see LINQ is similiar to the EOQualifier / EOFetchSpecification classes in EOF (plus EOQualifierEvaluation). With the difference that you can write it inline in your source code. In EOF you usually put those into the model. Greets, Helge From kieran_lists at mac.com Sat Dec 1 12:53:58 2007 From: kieran_lists at mac.com (Kieran Kelleher) Date: Sat Dec 1 12:54:11 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2F51F709-A053-43FC-8992-4A9F4DF17112@mac.com> I do all EOQualifiers in code. With codesense and static typing of key constants, I find it easier to build in code. But that's just me .... so the ability to build LINQ queries in code is not any different to EOF. In any case, I have no idea about LINQ other than the intros on the internet ..... only that it appears a "new" technology. EOF has been around about what, 12 years? From what I can see, the LINQ expressions seem to be like simplified SQL whose syntax is recognised by .NET. EOF Qualifiers seem to be more OO natural to me in that I can define lots of little qualifiers and then and them and or them and mix them. I can take an existing fetchspec, extract the qualifier and add another qualifier to it to filter it further without having to know the contents of the original qualifier. Also, it seems to only support MS SQL Server (well what else would you expect from Microsoft except monopoly and lock-in), whereas EOF officially supports about 5 or so enterprise SQL servers and probably supports many more ANSI SQL 92 enterprise databases. I don't use Windoze in general anymore (except for testing web pages against IE 6 and IE7 in Parallels). In fact I don't know if I like the LINQ syntax... I might as well write a SQL statement .... http://geekswithblogs.net/technetbytes/archive/2007/04/30/112129.aspx How would you take a whole bunch of LINQ expressions and combine them into one expression? In EOF, I can grab a default complex Qualifier for an entity from my EO class and add a few more qualifiers into the mix from user input and fetch against the final concoction pretty easily. I love this line: "Microsoft original motivation behind LINQ was to address the impedance mismatch between programming languages and database." .... and then this........ # LINQ to SQL (formerly DLinq) {Queries performed against the relation database only Microsoft SQL Server Supported} .... so what is the point if it does not have a bunch of adaptors that take a LINQ expression and generate correct SQL against many different database vendors? Anyway ...... just briefly looking at the LINQ intros online, it seems little more than simplified MS SQL Server SQL built into the language ..... big deal .... who cares. At the end of the day, the objective of EOF was to abstract object selection in a natural object oriented way and those qualifiers can filter in memory object graph or using a database adaptor can generate SQL for the one of many databases the developer may use. It seems to me LINQ is no more than fuddy duddy simplification for M$ developers so they don't have to build queries as strings. After reading about LINQ for 10 minutes, I would not even say it compares to EOF .... like comparing a bicycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Image:BicyclePlymouth.jpg) to a Honda CBR900RR Fireblade (http:// www.fireblades.org/) .... you are still have to work hard to go fast on a bicycle ;-) ... ah well .... that was an enjoyable Saturday afternoon rant against another hot air M$ technology that does not deserve any more attention than I have given it here. Cheers, Kieran On Dec 1, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Helge Hess wrote: > On 27.11.2007, at 03:11, Berney Bradley wrote: >> I just saw that .Net 3.5 was released last week with the LINQ >> (Language Integrated Query) technology. How does WO stack up when >> compared to the latest from MS? > > As far as I can see LINQ is similiar to the EOQualifier / > EOFetchSpecification classes in EOF (plus EOQualifierEvaluation). > With the difference that you can write it inline in your source > code. In EOF you usually put those into the model. > > Greets, > Helge > _______________________________________________ > WebObjects-talk mailing list > WebObjects-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk From mschrag at mdimension.com Sat Dec 1 14:12:15 2007 From: mschrag at mdimension.com (Mike Schrag) Date: Sat Dec 1 14:12:21 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ In-Reply-To: <2F51F709-A053-43FC-8992-4A9F4DF17112@mac.com> References: <2F51F709-A053-43FC-8992-4A9F4DF17112@mac.com> Message-ID: <3E440DDC-BFA6-4531-B2A3-EC40542FEEA4@mdimension.com> > Anyway ...... just briefly looking at the LINQ intros online, it > seems little more than simplified MS SQL Server SQL built into the > language ..... big deal .... who cares. In MS's defense, LINQ is more abstract than that, and a LITTLE bit interesting ... For instance, you can construct a LINQ query against an XML document (so it effectively behaves like XPath, but in a unified query language). Also, when combined with anonymous types and type inference, you actually get dynamic "classes" back that correspond to the results (for instance, if you query a first name and a last name, you actually get an anonymous type with .FirstName and .LastName properties). I don't, however, know how much is exposed underneath LINQ, so I don't know if you can write your own "adaptors." re: the syntax, it's actually kind of an interesting background. They moved the "from" part to the front of the syntax entirely to accommodate CodeSense. In SQL, as you start to type a "select", you don't know the domain that you will be selecting from, so when you perform a completion, you don't know what completions are possible. By moving the "from" part forward, CodeSense knows the entities that you will be selecting from, so it can actually offer proper completion. ms From arroz at guiamac.com Sat Dec 1 14:25:18 2007 From: arroz at guiamac.com (Miguel Arroz) Date: Sat Dec 1 14:25:27 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ In-Reply-To: <3E440DDC-BFA6-4531-B2A3-EC40542FEEA4@mdimension.com> References: <2F51F709-A053-43FC-8992-4A9F4DF17112@mac.com> <3E440DDC-BFA6-4531-B2A3-EC40542FEEA4@mdimension.com> Message-ID: <7AEA2DC8-E11E-4751-91D4-14314FF90577@guiamac.com> Hi! On 2007/12/01, at 22:12, Mike Schrag wrote: >> In MS's defense, LINQ is more abstract than that, and a LITTLE bit >> interesting ... For instance, you can construct a LINQ query >> against an XML document (so it effectively behaves like XPath, but >> in a unified query language). Humm.... that seems... Core Data? :) Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com From helge.hess at skyrix.com Sat Dec 1 15:20:32 2007 From: helge.hess at skyrix.com (Helge Hess) Date: Sat Dec 1 15:44:48 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ In-Reply-To: <7AEA2DC8-E11E-4751-91D4-14314FF90577@guiamac.com> References: <2F51F709-A053-43FC-8992-4A9F4DF17112@mac.com> <3E440DDC-BFA6-4531-B2A3-EC40542FEEA4@mdimension.com> <7AEA2DC8-E11E-4751-91D4-14314FF90577@guiamac.com> Message-ID: <47728092-DDF0-4E7B-95D1-EB1C8148594D@skyrix.com> On 01.12.2007, at 23:25, Miguel Arroz wrote: > On 2007/12/01, at 22:12, Mike Schrag wrote: >>> In MS's defense, LINQ is more abstract than that, and a LITTLE bit >>> interesting ... For instance, you can construct a LINQ query >>> against an XML document (so it effectively behaves like XPath, but >>> in a unified query language). > Humm.... that seems... Core Data? :) Hm, no, isn't the XML of CoreData just a CD specific dump of the in- memory objects? To me it sounds more like KVC on a DOM node. (evaluateWithObject() called on a DOM node which obviously needs to provide a sensible KVC=>XML mapping). (valueForKey on a DOM node could do all kind of funky things) Language wise I'm not sure whether LINQ is a particulary good idea, IMHO the only real application is SQL generation (well, or other stuff which will be executed in a different process, IMAP4 or LDAP queries would also be OK). For stuff which is processed by the appserver HOM/blocks look like a much more beautiful solution. Greets, Helge From lists.fabian at e-lumo.com Sun Dec 2 05:06:11 2007 From: lists.fabian at e-lumo.com (Fabian Peters) Date: Sun Dec 2 05:11:26 2007 Subject: Cocoa-Eclipse on its way? Message-ID: <35983F7A-248E-430F-834F-FCC0E47DA669@e-lumo.com> Hi, Maybe I get it all wrong, but: cheers, Fabian From mschrag at mdimension.com Sun Dec 2 05:20:37 2007 From: mschrag at mdimension.com (Mike Schrag) Date: Sun Dec 2 05:20:48 2007 Subject: Cocoa-Eclipse on its way? In-Reply-To: <35983F7A-248E-430F-834F-FCC0E47DA669@e-lumo.com> References: <35983F7A-248E-430F-834F-FCC0E47DA669@e-lumo.com> Message-ID: > Maybe I get it all wrong, but: > Don't get too excited ... This really doesn't mean all that much -- it's mostly just about future-proofing Eclipse. For people who hate Eclipse, you will hate it just as much, but you will just hate it as implemented on top of Cocoa instead of Carbon. For the most part, as a normal end-user, nothing will really change for you. ms From lists.fabian at e-lumo.com Sun Dec 2 05:38:17 2007 From: lists.fabian at e-lumo.com (Fabian Peters) Date: Sun Dec 2 05:38:25 2007 Subject: Cocoa-Eclipse on its way? In-Reply-To: References: <35983F7A-248E-430F-834F-FCC0E47DA669@e-lumo.com> Message-ID: <575B8E5D-F4AB-42BC-A00C-5236B53CA834@e-lumo.com> >> Maybe I get it all wrong, but: > > > Don't get too excited ... This really doesn't mean all that much -- > it's mostly just about future-proofing Eclipse. For people who hate > Eclipse, you will hate it just as much, but you will just hate it as > implemented on top of Cocoa instead of Carbon. For the most part, > as a normal end-user, nothing will really change for you. > > ms I see, thanks, Mike. Already wondered why nobody mentioned this so far. I don't care all that much, as long as its stable and helps to get the work done... :-) cheers, Fabian From khans at ubermind.com Sun Dec 2 13:19:21 2007 From: khans at ubermind.com (Shehryar Khan) Date: Sun Dec 2 13:18:29 2007 Subject: Cocoa-Eclipse on its way? In-Reply-To: References: <35983F7A-248E-430F-834F-FCC0E47DA669@e-lumo.com> Message-ID: <61B5BA3C-3288-4DF2-97FE-AC73A0ED1E29@ubermind.com> Perhaps not in the context of using eclipse but as a way to build fat client Java based apps for Mac OS X that are powered by EOF and backed by enterprise grade relational databases this may indeed have some legs. IMHO there's a big void in that space right now (and Core-Data doesn't quite cut it). -shehryar On Dec 2, 2007, at 5:20 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: >> Maybe I get it all wrong, but: > 2007/11/30/swt-moving-to-cocoa/> > Don't get too excited ... This really doesn't mean all that much -- > it's mostly just about future-proofing Eclipse. For people who > hate Eclipse, you will hate it just as much, but you will just hate > it as implemented on top of Cocoa instead of Carbon. For the most > part, as a normal end-user, nothing will really change for you. > > ms > > _______________________________________________ > WebObjects-talk mailing list > WebObjects-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk > From mschrag at mdimension.com Sun Dec 2 14:53:32 2007 From: mschrag at mdimension.com (Mike Schrag) Date: Sun Dec 2 14:53:39 2007 Subject: Cocoa-Eclipse on its way? In-Reply-To: <61B5BA3C-3288-4DF2-97FE-AC73A0ED1E29@ubermind.com> References: <35983F7A-248E-430F-834F-FCC0E47DA669@e-lumo.com> <61B5BA3C-3288-4DF2-97FE-AC73A0ED1E29@ubermind.com> Message-ID: <5C1FC1A5-46F5-4C26-93B5-B195DDC7F81D@mdimension.com> > Perhaps not in the context of using eclipse but as a way to build > fat client Java based apps for Mac OS X that are powered by EOF and > backed by enterprise grade relational databases this may indeed have > some legs. > > IMHO there's a big void in that space right now (and Core-Data > doesn't quite cut it). .... soooort of ... By that I mean that SWT is not changing, so there's nothing that you can't already do now. SWT is just written against Carbon instead of Cocoa right now. The only things that will really be different are 1) if you work on the SWT source itself, it's probably much nicer (objc vs c, that's nice) and 2) now that basic technique is down, it's probably easier to write Java wrappers for additional Obj-C libraries to do bridging, but that's not really SWT, just the tools they made for SWT. ms From ricardy.banks at lmco.com Mon Dec 3 04:41:17 2007 From: ricardy.banks at lmco.com (Banks, Ricardy) Date: Mon Dec 3 05:09:09 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ In-Reply-To: <98566E42-44A7-43FC-BF6E-037E6B479E23@mac.com> References: <98566E42-44A7-43FC-BF6E-037E6B479E23@mac.com> Message-ID: <249DC7180F301445BCA2E01EAAFDF40904EB8987@emss04m05.us.lmco.com> Lachlan, Although a bit dated now I thought this was one of the best most unbiased comparisons of WO with another technology. http://www.cs.rit.edu:8080/ms/static/ats/2003/3/ama7461/index.html Regards, Ricardy On Monday Nov 26, 2007 10:22 PM, at 10:22 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote: > On 27/11/2007, at 1:11 PM, Berney Bradley wrote: > >> I just saw that .Net 3.5 was released last week with the LINQ >> (Language Integrated Query) technology. How does WO stack up when >> compared to the latest from MS? >> >> I checked the wiki and it seems there is a lack of competitive >> analysis between WO and other technologies. Can anyone comment on >> why someone would choose WO over .Net, in light of the recent LINQ >> release? I'm looking for technical reasons, not emotional or >> political arguments ;-) > > From my cursory glance at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Integrated_Query > > LINQ is an sql-esq language construct for .Net. So you're > essentially writing sql in your code such as seen on the above page. > > WebObject's EOF, on the other hand, abstracts sql from you (unless > you need it) so you're always dealing with Objects. This document > may help... 'Working with EOF: > http://developer.apple.com/documentation/WebObjects/Enterprise_Objects/i ndex.html > > with regards, > -- > > Lachlan Deck > _______________________________________________ > WebObjects-talk mailing list > WebObjects-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk _______________________________________________ WebObjects-talk mailing list WebObjects-talk@omnigroup.com http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk From chill at global-village.net Mon Dec 3 10:51:40 2007 From: chill at global-village.net (Chuck Hill) Date: Mon Dec 3 10:51:53 2007 Subject: WO vs. .Net 3.5 LINQ In-Reply-To: <2F51F709-A053-43FC-8992-4A9F4DF17112@mac.com> References: <2F51F709-A053-43FC-8992-4A9F4DF17112@mac.com> Message-ID: <828EA874-24E3-4187-95DE-54128E378693@global-village.net> On Dec 1, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > > At the end of the day, the objective of EOF was to abstract object > selection in a natural object oriented way and those qualifiers can > filter in memory object graph or using a database adaptor can > generate SQL for the one of many databases the developer may use. There is also the very important EOF concept of a local editing sandbox (EOEditingContext) that gets synchronized with the other sandboxes after a successful save operation. Chuck > On Dec 1, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Helge Hess wrote: > >> On 27.11.2007, at 03:11, Berney Bradley wrote: >>> I just saw that .Net 3.5 was released last week with the LINQ >>> (Language Integrated Query) technology. How does WO stack up >>> when compared to the latest from MS? >> >> As far as I can see LINQ is similiar to the EOQualifier / >> EOFetchSpecification classes in EOF (plus EOQualifierEvaluation). >> With the difference that you can write it inline in your source >> code. In EOF you usually put those into the model. >> >> Greets, >> Helge >> _______________________________________________ >> WebObjects-talk mailing list >> WebObjects-talk@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk > > _______________________________________________ > WebObjects-talk mailing list > WebObjects-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk > -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects From webobjects_lists at webappz.com Sun Dec 23 22:25:20 2007 From: webobjects_lists at webappz.com (Gaastra Dennis - WO Lists) Date: Sun Dec 23 22:55:06 2007 Subject: WEBAPPZ releases PDFkit 5.4.0 - available for free. Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE After several years since the first release of WEBAPPZ's PDFkit, WEBAPPZ is now making the product available at no charge. WEBAPPZ has decided to modernize its revenue model regarding its flagship PDF generation product. Instead of charging up-front fees for its PDFkit product, the product will be available for free, and WEBAPPZ will only charge for optional support and training related to the product. PDFkit is an easy to use, powerful software tool that generates web browser embedded PDF files, including table-based PDF reports. The ability to add images to any of the pages and to add multiple tables consecutively are just some of the features. The tables use a cell- based architecture enabling many color, font, and image combinations to meet different user requirements. The kit can be obtained by downloading the "Application Form", and returning the completed form to us via fax. You may also scan and email it to us. Upon acceptance, a licensed copy will be emailed. To get started, download the Application Form here: http://www.webappz.com/products/PDFkit/downloads.html WEBAPPZ does like to maintain control of the distribution of the product and welcomes any sales in support and training services. WEBAPPZ wishes its clients and friends in the WebObjects community Happy Holidays and the best for 2008! Contact: Dennis Gaastra WEBAPPZ Systems, Inc. www.webappz.com (+1) 604.921.1333 ### From pb at seat-1.com Mon Dec 24 01:59:49 2007 From: pb at seat-1.com (Pirmin Braun) Date: Mon Dec 24 01:59:54 2007 Subject: IntarS 5.1 Virtual Appliance available for Download on Sourceforge Message-ID: <476F8315.5090704@seat-1.com> IntarS is a German WebObjects/GSWeb OpenSource Meta ERP System targeted at small to medium sized companies. Meta ERP means that all business logic resides in a loadable repository rather than being hardcoded. Loading a new repository brings up a new ERP system. Changing business logic is done by editing the repository with a graphical workbench and reload. Started in 1999 it is now made available as VMWare (tm) Virtual Appliance on http://sourceforge.net/projects/intars/ Included is a Debian system, MySQL, GNUstep Web, Apache and the IntarS Engine used to execute the repository. A small repository (#130) is provided giving you some customer management, article base, groupware, invoicing. It serves as a technology demonstration showing all principal features. Real world repositories for different branches are available from seat-1 Software GmbH (www.seat-1.com). ObjectiveC Sourcecode of the IntarS Engine (called Universal Business Application) and the Workbench is available in the subversion menu. To get it running, download, unzip, load the image into free VMWare (tm) Player or any other VMWare server product, start the VM, point your Firefox browser to http://your_IP/GSWeb/Aprica2000130?pw=root&loginname=Administrator It's all in German. -- mit freundlichen Gruessen/best regards Pirmin Braun +49 2642409 251 - Sandweg 13 - 53424 Remagen +49 0163-6290887 - skype:pirminb http://www.seat-1.com http://www.busw.de pb@seat-1.de pb@busw.de seat-1 Software GmbH - Am Hofbr?uhaus 1 - 96540 Coburg Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Pirmin Braun, Ralf Engelhardt Registergericht: Amtsgericht Coburg HRB3136 ein Unternehmen der MAX21 Gruppe - http://www.max21.de