From: Aaron Bartell
#1 - Creative people like to use the tools they are familiar and most
productive in. WDSC is not that tool nor is it likey to be.
And yet, thousands of developers use Eclipse every day, and it's the number
one IDE for web development. Go figure.
JSF is not
condusive to a creative persons mind (my experience based on a number of
projects). The same is true for the .NET environment - doesn't play nice
with graphic designers (even with master pages). I don't doubt that it is
the best JSF GUI builder out there.
This is the crux of the argument. From what I can gather, it's your opinion
that creative people can't use WYSIWYG tools like Eclipse or .NET. Thisw is
your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but that position is contradicted by
the legions of programmers using these tools (even the grep and sed crowd
use Eclipse as their IDE these days).
#2 - Internal screens don't need to look as nice as external screens in my
opinion. When my company does a customer facing website we go to our
grapics designer. When we do internal work we just have them pick colors
for the color palatte (if even that).
Yeah, okay. Not sure what that means. In WDSC, you create a template and
by definition all your screens use the same logos, colors, fonts and
whatnot. Not sure why it's an issue.
Have you taken any of the tutorials?
Been reading your articles is all. Don't have the tool easily available
to me (read, I would load it on if I didn't have to track it down and
waste 1/2 day).
Uh huh. How much time did you "waste" on Tapestry? On other side
technologies? I think we're getting to the point where you need to fish or
cut bait. You can either try the tool, or you can say you're not going to
use it because... because you don't want to use it. But that latter
position pretty much removes you from any ongoing technical debate.
That's impossible to say, because I don't know what you consider
enterprise level.
Read the question Joe. To re-quote (with emphasis): "Have you developed
what **you consider** an Enterprise level application with EGL?"
And re-read the answer. I am a systems architect, Nathan. I know what
pieces need to be delivered in order to create what I consider an enterprise
level system. I have been able to build all of those in a proof of concept
white room environment. I have no doubt that all of the components will
work as I need them.
That's about all I need to fell comfortable that the system is
Enterprise
ready.
Just so I understand your exposure to EGL, you haven't developed what
**you** would call a considerable application in it?
Remember, Aaron, I'm only using EGL for the user interface, and I have a
decade of experience in putting browser front ends on System i business
logic. So as long as I'm comfortable that EGL will create a browser front
end comparable with the architecture I've documented for all these years, I
think I can reasonably say it's okay.
While I haven't implemented an entire client system using EGL, I have
implemented several using JSP Model 2, of which JSF is a superset, so I
think I can base my judgment on that. JSF is an excellent web application
technology, and EGL is a superior way to get dynamic data into JSF.
Which architectures have you used to create fully-functional enterprise
level system browser-based systems, and what components of those systems do
you consider crucial to the enterprise level?
Here's a case study from IBM and Morpheus:
I can see why they were so successful. First they brought in two seasoned
Java developers, and next they brought in "IBM EGL expert" team members.
EGL still appears to be much easier than a more raw
framework, but I think it is safe to say this project doesn't fit your
model of introducing EGL to an organization.
What is "my model", Aaron? I've never said anything about introducing EGL
to an organization! Really, what color is the sky on your planet? You have
these entire imaginary conversations with me, and then you argue against
your own mental constructs!
All I'm saying is that for people who don't want to use Java, EGL is a
fantastic option for creating browser based applications. Try it, you might
like it. Now, you haven't used it, you have no idea how it works, and yet
you argue against it. And really, most of your argument is against JSF,
which isn't even a part of EGL, it's an open standard that EGL uses. But
you'd know that, if you used the tool.
So I'm going to stop arguing with people who haven't even tried EGL. If
someone hasn't used the tool and wants to have a good reason to try it, then
I am more than willing to give them my opinion. But if you won't try it and
still want to bash the technology, then it's a waste of my time and the
bandwidth of the list.
Have a nice day, and an excellent holiday.
Joe
midrange.com
