[kiskynet]

so we've taken the plunge & just recently set up our own company and developed our first product in OS X & WebObjects, a website for saving your SMS messages online sort of a .Mac for your phone... (Country Warning this service is only available in the UK although you can still browse msgs and listen to previews.. oh hang on that's something else..)

six months ago I didn't have a clue how to make this stuff I was still doing the html & flash web design thing.... If you're looking to start making dynamic sites with Databases and all the rest then WebObjects although its got a bit of a learning curve its well worth the effort, forget Dreamweaver!!

http://www.treasuremytext.com

[Angus_D]

I don't get your comparison between Dreamweaver and WebObjects. It makes no sense.

[kiskynet]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
I don't get your comparison between Dreamweaver and WebObjects. It makes no sense.

it was meant more like thankgod I can put dreamweaver away forget about it, consign it to the bin because I've seen a better way and hopefully I'l never have to use it too build another site again.

6 Months ago I used dreamweaver to make a site I didn't know any better, now I use WO out of necessity of this particular site yes but hopefully I'll never need to go back. Even for something basic WebObjects as a web Dev Tool is leaps and bounds ahead of DW even though it might be overkill for something simple, but then again how many sites are actually simple these days.

This has been the best thing I've discovered since Golive Cyberstudio!!

[nica]

kiskynet I have some questions about this I also plan to develop a web application
and I'm thinking about using WO but I'm not sure that is the correct route.

1- You have to host it on UNIX\Linux right (web server)?
2- Are there any books to learn WO I just have web design and no database experience?
3- Would it be better overall to use Coldfusion?

If anybody has comments about these questions please feel free to post, thanks

The web application is for a stock photography service.

[Angus_D]

kisky: Nope, still don't get your comparison. Dreamweaver is a HTML editor, WebObjects is an application server. Like comparing apples to oranges.

nica:
1. Apple supports deployment of WO on Mac OS X Server, Win2K and Solaris. Some people have had success deploying on Linux. As of version 5.2 or so, you can also deploy within any J2EE environment.

2. There are books, but you wouldn't really want to tackle it with no database experience whatsoever. WebObjects is high-end stuff, and probably overkill for your needs. Not to mention, the learning curve is extremely steep.

3. The high entry bar of WebObjects in terms of both investment in learning it and investment in deploying it (you're basically looking at co-location) means in most cases it's not the best solution. You may be better off with something cheap and cheerful, like PHP & MySQL or something like that. These also tend to have a bigger community, a wider range of books and support materials, etc etc.

[nica]

Thanks Angus, you have provided invaluable information.

I guess I will find more resources using PHP and MySQL
rather than WO. And for future jobs for that matter.

The only few applications that I have heard that have used
WO is the Apple store , Itunes music store and kiskynet's SMS service.

Thanks Angus

[kiskynet]

yeah a comparison between DW and WO doesn't make any sense there its like comparing Illustrator & Photoshop, like you say Apples & Oranges, I guess I mentioned that because my only point of reference and experience of any web development previously was DW and Flash.

Actually I considered PHP & mySql first, even bought a book, it seemed the most approachable and WO definitly scared me especially when your considering learning Database Modelling & Java from scratch at athe same time but then you've still got to learn PHP and Sql anyway which didn't exactly seem like a bowl of cherries either.

Big difference to me is your building an application rather than a web site. I definitly prefer building an application, when you've done both somehow building even anything more complex than a few pages the DW way seems a pretty arcane flaky way of doing something.

Best thing is to try them all and see what feels best for the job. You can get free ADC Membership & download the trial of WO + I'd recommend getting yourself Ravi Mendis' fabulous WO book if you're starting out with it

[MadBrowser]

First I used PHP. It was okay.

Then I used servlets. They were better than PHP but still not great.

Then I moved to full J2EE with EJBs, Servlets, JSPs and tags. That worked pretty well and I thought it was a big step up...

Then I tried WebObjects. It changed my professional life. It is so much more powerful than any other application development tool I have ever used. At first I couldn't believe it.

Anyway, I am now a fan.

We deploy our WO apps on Linux. Not supported but we've had zero problems.

[gralem]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
kisky: Nope, still don't get your comparison. Dreamweaver is a HTML editor, WebObjects is an application server. Like comparing apples to oranges.

He was talking about DEVELOPMENT (i.e. WebObjects Builder.app) and not DEPLOYMENT. Remember, WO includes a complete development environment.

---gralem

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by gralem:
He was talking about DEVELOPMENT (i.e. WebObjects Builder.app) and not DEPLOYMENT. Remember, WO includes a complete development environment.

For web-based applications. It's not a HTML editor. I'm sure he didn't mean that WOBuilder is a better HTML editor than Dreamweaver is, that would be nonsense.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by MadBrowser:
Then I tried WebObjects. It changed my professional life. It is so much more powerful than any other application development tool I have ever used. At first I couldn't believe it.

That seems to be the consensus, and it was the impression that I got when I looked at it briefly. However, the consensus is also that it's not an easy beast to get a handle on, which might put some people off.

We deploy our WO apps on Linux. Not supported but we've had zero problems.

Still not cheap, though, I'd bet

[gralem]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
For web-based applications. It's not a HTML editor. I'm sure he didn't mean that WOBuilder is a better HTML editor than Dreamweaver is, that would be nonsense.

I think that is what he is saying--WOBuilder doesn't (for example) put any extraneous tags into a document. If you insert a table, you are inserting a table--no <DIV> or <SPAN> tags. If you start typing text, you don't automatically get <P> and <FONT> tags all over the place. You want <FONT> or <DIV>? You add them yourself. WOBuilder may not display the edited document as "pretty" as DW, but if you want control over your HTML source, WOBuilder allows you to do EXACTLY what you want (including styles and css and javascript).

He didn't say so much, but that has been my experience.

---gralem