GreaterGood.com., by the way. But it was two or three years ago. I'm
loath to mention it, because I wasn't the prime mover, and I don't want
to take more credit than I deserve. I was only contracting there for
three months.
OmniGroup and Ubermind did much of the work.
-cg.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anjo Krank [mailto:anjo.kran..-online.de]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:18 PM
To: Christian Gruber
Cc: 'Anjo Krank'; 'Anders Peterson'; 'Ulrich Köster'; 'Euan Maxwell';
woproject-de..bjectstyle.org
Subject: Re: [webobjects-newbies] Re: WebObjects development under
Linux/WINE?
Hi Christian,
In case the app is open to the public, then I'd really like to see it,
because I have a hard time to believe that you get good
turnaround-times with graphics-heavy things and WO...imagine the hassle
explaining GFX guy to use CVS. Most of them aren't even used to naming
files with proper extensions...
Cheers, Anjo
Am Samstag, 14.12.02, um 01:08 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Christian
Gruber:
> Ahh. I think that's a matter of process, to some extent. I've had
> great luck integrating web-development with WO. It's a long
> discussion,
> and one more suited to a developer/WO-specific list, rather than
> WOProject/WOLips, but if anything, I have gotten cleaner HTML and
> JavaScript by integrating a cycle of developers and designers in a
> tight
> loop, and the designers get really really fast turnaround.
>
> Cg.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anjo Krank [mailto:anjo.kran..-online.de]
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 6:36 PM
> To: Christian Gruber
> Cc: 'Anjo Krank'; 'Anders Peterson'; 'Ulrich Köster'; 'Euan Maxwell';
> woproject-de..bjectstyle.org
> Subject: Re: [webobjects-newbies] Re: WebObjects development under
> Linux/WINE?
>
>
> Am Freitag, 13.12.02, um 23:31 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Christian
> Gruber:
>
>> I'm pretty sure I'm not comfortable with that. I do like the
>> separation. We just need a tool to handle the different parts.
>>
>> They are different in meaning. Static binding, run-time
>> pre-configuration, view, and controller (the .java).
>
> It simply depends on what you want to do: in case you want to create a
> normal, but web-enabled app, then you are correct. The separation is
> useful.
>
> On the other hand, if you are creating "web-sites" that use WO as yet
> another app server, then the separation is a terrible PITA, because
you
> can't really give the stuff over to your design folks for even minor
> text or UI edits. It simply takes oo much time to make them
comfortable
> with it.
>
> Design and usablitity (javascript) is a great concern there and the
.wo
> stuff merges *very* poorly with it.
>
> Cheers, Anjo
>
>> Cg.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anjo Krank [mailto:anjo.kran..-online.de]
>>
>> Another thing I thought about was to create a template parser that
> will
>> do away with the unnerving .wo wrapper and the seperation of .wod,
> .woo
>> and .html and create only one HTML file with a syntax like <table
>> id=someName width=someBinding webobjects=SomeTableClass> and
>> <webobjects:SomeCustomClass id=someOtherName > to better integrate
> into
>> existing tools like DreamWeaver. However, this would make development
>> even more proprietary than it is now even if it would be easy to
write
>> a conversion script for all the existing elements.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Dec 13 2002 - 20:15:41 EST