I recently read the article: "Behind the Red Shed, with Jonathan 'The Wolf' Rentzsch" and in it he talks about how great he thinks WebOjects is. WebObjects, as far as I can tell, is just a basic framework for doing "Web Applications" and things of a similar nature. As I mentioned earlier, he seems to think WebObjects is still the best framework there is. To quote from the article:
When I picked up WO in 2000, I told pretty much anyone who listened that while WebObjects is the most advanced application server out there, that open source would catch up with it inside five years.

Yet here we are in 2005, and there's still nothing close. Believe me, I've been looking. Read the WebObjects developer mailing list for a recap of the treatment WebObjects developers got at WWDC 2004.

I would love to get off WebObjects and replace it with something open source. It would make web application development pitches easier if I never have to mention the dreaded "A" word. I have clients who will simply shut the door if I mention Apple's name, even today.

So I keep an eye on projects like Hibernate, Cayenne, Tapestry and Ruby on Rails. And yet, each time I start a new project, I do the math and rediscover WebObjects will deliver better software in less time. Lord, I wish it weren't true, but it is.

But that wasn't your question. Your question was "is WebObjects relevant"? As a commercial application server: no. It hasn't been for a long time.

No, WebObjects is only relevant if you're on the hook for writing lots of web applications fairly quickly. There's an definite escape velocity however -- the learning curve is steep, so it really only makes sense if you are currently or planning on becoming a professional developer.
My purpose in meditating here was to ask what the other monks think. I have very little experience with non-perl web application frameworks and none at all with WebObjects, so I was wondering if a monk who has experience with both might chime in and offer at least a somewhat objective view on what makes webobjects so great, and why it isn't used more.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: WebObjects vs ... anything?
by stvn (Monsignor) on Mar 28, 2005 at 22:27 UTC
    ... so I was wondering if a monk who has experience with both might chime in and offer at least a somewhat objective view on what makes webobjects so great, and why it isn't used more.

    I agree with the quoted author, its the "A" word which causes all the problems. Which is actually silly since WebObjects was originally a NeXT product (IIRC that is), and NeXT, while not much of commercial success seems to be well respected amoung developers.

    But anyway, to more answer your question. I have never actually used WebObject in a production site. But I did do some extensive research on it and built (along with another developer) some basic demo apps as part of that research. We ended up going with BEA WebLogic instead because of a corporate mandate from the client.

    My impression of WebObjects though was that it was a really nice and very mature platform. The small apps we built (a basic guestbook type app and a primative message board) took no time at all once we got our heads around WebObject's development model. There was a good amount of WYSIWYG stuff, which I normally do not like, but the WebObjects approach was actually pretty nice and did not make me feel "out of control" of what I was building.

    As I said, in the end, the order came down from our client's corp HQ to use BEA WebLogic, so it was a non-issue. But prior to that I had a hard time convincing their IT folk that Apple could make a decent app server. Another point too (suprisingly) was that WebObjects at the time only cost about $800 USD, and I think the project manager(s) did not think it had enough zeros to make it a good product.

    All in all, I have to somewhat agree with the author you quoted. WebObject is a clean, mature platform which makes building web apps very easy, and there is little out there in the Open Source world which is even close right now.

    -stvn
[reply]
Re: WebObjects vs ... anything?
by Mugatu (Monk) on Mar 28, 2005 at 20:24 UTC
    Based on the quoted text, there's not much to comment on. I see lots of hand waving about "professional" and "advanced" web applications, but nothing really substantive to respond to. And I might get flamed for this, but I get the sense that there wouldn't be much substantive information there, if I went searching for it. It would be a pleasant surprise if I were proved wrong, but my gut tells me I won't. It just feels like a subjective opinion hidden in lots of business speak to justify it.
[reply]
      Here's some info on it from O'Reilly.
[reply]
Re: WebObjects vs ... anything?
by dynamo (Chaplain) on Mar 30, 2005 at 18:21 UTC
    I have built a fairly large project in WebObjects, and I agree with "The Wolf": It's the best web app server around, hands down. The only major problems stem from relative lack of use in the industry. I don't want to try to summarize why fell in I love with it, but I can say why I think it's not used: Apple acts like it's some kind of closely guarded secret rather than a product to be advertised. Also, as you quoted, some people consider it 'the dreaded "A" word'.. Plenty of great technologies die out from non-use when no one knows they're there.
[reply]
      I don't want to try to summarize why fell in I love with it
      Er, for the purposes of this discussion, could you at least try? I, at least, am woefully unaware of any reason that this would be considered the best application server, and judging by the number of upvotes my original question got, I would guess a fairly large number of other people have no idea either. So what makes it just so darn good?
[reply]

Back to Meditations