Click == http://click.sourceforge.net
It's very, very simple, tied to the Servlet API. And the documentation for
it is very good as well. Check out the Pages link for a good description of
what it does and how it does it.
Don't know how well it will scale yet, but it is behaving itself for me so
far.
Geoff
On 16/11/05, Marc Respass <mar..arcrespass.com> wrote:
>
> What is "Click"? Is there really a framework out there that compares to
> WebObjects? I can believe Cayenne has made it to EOF level but I haven't
> used it.
> Unfortunately for me, I don't have a PeeCee and my customer keeps making
> me do WebObjects and Cocoa. How I long for J2EE and Swing (kidding).
> Marc
> On Nov 16, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Geoff Hopson wrote:
>
> All this FUD, uncertainty and lack of clarity just adds to my goal of
> dropping WO for Cayenne/Click. Even when all the licensing dust has settled
> for WO531, what happens on the next WO release. And the one after that?
> Sorry, but if Apple are painting me into a corner, I'm getting out. The open
> source alternatives are now good enough for me and my customers. YMMV...
>
>
> On 16/11/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> >
> > I guess a bigger negative point in the discussion is this - it is
> > cheaper and easier to buy Macs for your developers than to argue with
> > Apple in court. If your product/service revenues do not justify Mac
> > purchase, than litigation is probably not what you want either :-/
> >
> > Hmm... I never resorted to anti-WO FUD to promote Cayenne, but now it
> > looks like there is no FUD in telling people to switch.
> >
> > Andrus
> >
> >
> > On Nov 16, 2005, at 5:07 PM, David Teran wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> If this bothers you, buy a Mac Mini, install WO and expose the
> > >> jars via Samba to your Windows machine :-)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, that would be a good idea, at least this is what apple likes
> > > you to do ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> But I agree - it is ridiculous that programmers have to go into
> > >> such trouble to interpret the stupid license.
> > >>
> > >> "EOF references" in source code are definitely not controlled by
> > >> the Apple license (c'mon - do you seriously think that the day you
> > >> learned about NSArray, you soul belongs to Steve Jobs). Whether
> > >> *compiling* against WO jars is allowed under deployment license
> > >> (using javac and Eclipse) - that's not 100% clear, but I'd say it is.
> > >>
> > >> Say I write a super dynamic WO application where a user enters WO
> > >> template code in runtime, typing it in a web form for later
> > >> rendering as a WO component... Or another WO app with some
> > >> embedded scripting language with expressions compiled in runtime
> > >> against WO jars. With modern Java, compilation is a de-facto part
> > >> of deployment (IIRC in Java 1.6 there will be public compiler API
> > >> available in runtime).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Well, i think the intention is pretty clear to all of us:
> > > development only on mac os x, deployment free (and afaik also -for-
> > > free). While the definition of development and deployment is quite
> > > flexible i still think: its clear what development is and its clear
> > > what deployment is. A hyperdynamic WOApp which compiles classes at
> > > runtime from text entered in a WOText field and such things, at
> > > least clear to me: deployment. A person which sits in front of a
> > > computer running linux or windows, hitting the keyboard and
> > > triggering eclipse to do something, with the help of different
> > > plugIns like WOLIps, at least clear to meh: development.
> > >
> > > But its up to apple to specify what development is and what not,
> > > but only if they care about this. I am not sure if they really care
> > > and at least for me its not important: i would -never never never-
> > > develop on linux or windows so i am happy.
> > >
> > > my additional 2ct.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Nov 16 2005 - 11:41:53 EST