Just say you have a quite large and complicated desktop application written in objective-c/cocoa written properly in MVC. You then wish to replace the V and C so that it is a web application?
Is there anything like Tomcat but for objective c? The closest thing I can think of is somehow convert the Model code into an apache module to load in apache?
Obviously I could embed some sort of HTTP server and write a whole pile of code to manage sessions and requests and responses and so on, but might there be a simpler way?
You can leave the server almost as-is. I'd run it as a daemon in the background.
I'd split the controller part. One part of it resides on the server as a connection between HTTP requests and the daemon.
You could run a self-made http server.
You could build it into a Apache module as you mentioned.
You could access your controller through CGI. This is the easiest option as I see it.
The second part of the controller is written in Javascript in the browser, exchanging data with the server and updating the GUI.
The view part is written completely in javascript.
You could - if you want - leave out the controller on the server and make the model understand HTTP requests.
For the Controller / View part consider using a framework.
jQuery for only a light interface. (Or a similar framework.)
I haven't yet found a framework that leaves all the model stuff to the server. Maybe you can use SproutCore or Cappuccino accordingly.
SproutCore, the full-backed MVC framework that is used by Apple. (Think so at least.)
Cappuccino, another full-backed MVC framework.
Have you looked at Cappuccino? http://cappuccino.org/
I have not used but have heard many good things about it.
There is a new web development platform for Objective-C/Cocoa called Bombax. It sounds like exactly what you're looking for (it is designed to allow you to write entire web applications in Objective-C). Perhaps you could even combine it with Cappuccino. You can check it out at http://www.bombaxtic.com.
The closest you'll probably come to Objective-C web frameworks are either SOPE, or GNUStep, neither of which I have used, but ran across when I was deciding if I wanted to use Rails or something written in Objective-C for my web stuff. There's also ARJDatabase, which is kind of like Core Data, but not source compatible.
The bottom line is, unless you were very careful about how you wrote your code (i.e. wrote it with GNUStep in mind, didn't use anything Apple specific) you're probably going to have to do quite a bit of work anyway. And if you used Core Data at all, there's no way I know of to reuse that outside of a Mac App. And since it's not setup to be used my multiple simultaneous users, you wouldn't want to use that in a web app anyway. Bottom line, I went with Rails.
There is Frothkit - http://code.google.com/p/frothkit/ but it appears not to have been updated for a year.
Related
TLDR; is it possible to send/receive objects between an app and a 3rd party launch agent?
I'm writing an extension for an existing app (A). It's packaged and I do not have access to the source - but I can write simple plug-ins that can do some basic Cocoa and host a UI. Read: very limited options.
Ideally, what I'd like to do is have the plugin in app (A) message an external service (B) [sending objects], have (B) do some heavy lifting, then respond back to (A) so the UI can update.
I've been reading up on Launch Agents and they look promising, but I noted the examples all use basic types - no objects. I found one post discussing how to use Distributed Objects, but that's about it. It looks great, but what worries me is I'm not seeing a whole lot of current information on DO and I can't tell if it's something Apple will continue to support going forward.
Does anyone have any suggestions on options for a scenario like this? Maybe I'm just approaching this the wrong way?
Another option is I just completely split this out - write a separate full app and have (A) open it up with AppleScript. The UX wouldn't be as nice, but it would also work.
Thank you,
Eric
NOTE: I can't use NSTask. Or at least I've failed utterly to get it to work in this specific situation. Due to issues with app (A) it breaks when some of the methods run within the process. If I could somehow spawn NSTask so it was executing completely outside of (A) that might be an option. Which is actually what prompted me to look at Launch Agents...
Our new iPhone project consists of a native app and a server it needs to communicate with. I'd like the server to be written in Python/Django.
The last time we created something similar, the server was in written in asp.net and it exposed relevant methods as a SOAP-based web service. This was very convenient, since we were able to generate almost all server communication code from the WSDL using http://sudzc.com/. Now I basically want to do the same, but with Django instead of asp.net. More specifically, I want to expose methods and objects over an API and I'd really like to have some automatic Objective-C code generation at the other end.
I've looked at a few libraries for Django that are supposed to expose RESTful APIs, and most people seem to recommend django-piston or django-rest-framework. Will either of them have a WSDL-style description that I can use to auto-generate ObjC-code, though? Is there another set of tools for achieving what I'm after that I should be investigating?
In my personal experience I don't know of anything that exists to generate client-side stubs in Objective-C for a REST service. However, there's a very good library called RESTKit that features a JSON or XML to object mapping layer, and nice features like CoreData integration and local caching. There are number of useful Stackoverflow questions on it.
So that can get you part of the way, since it will handle communication and object mapping. If you need to build code-generation, it could output code that sets up RESTKit's mapping structures.
Another REST client lib for iOS that I like a lot is LRResty, for its clean API, but it's lower level than RESTKit in that it doesn't have any built-in parsing/object mapping features.
In this similar stackoverflow question there's a link to something called wsdl2objc which sounds like it's in line with what you need on the iOS side (I've no personal experience with it, so ymmv, etc...)
What are the differences between the three Smalltalk web application frameworks?
Some starting points:
What is the sweet spot for each framework? in Which case would you use one or the other?
What are their weaknesses?
Which one has the cleanest URLs?
How do they handle Ajax?
Do they have some preference in their use of persistence?
I'm just trying to decide which framework is appropriate for each kind of application.
I can only answer for Seaside:
Target: Seaside targets complex web applications with focus on reusability and development productivity. There is automatic session state management and back-button support. The two free online books Dynamic Web Development with Seaside and Seaside Tutorial provide documentation.
Weakness: For RESTful URLs you have to do some extra work.
Clean URLs: For RESTful URLs you have to do some extra work, but it can be worth it (e.g. Pier).
AJAX: There are plenty of AJAX libraries integrated in Seaside (jQuery, jQueryUI, Prototype, script.aculo.us, ...). The integrations give you full access to these libraries from within Smalltalk. New libraries can be easily integrated, e.g. JQueryWidgetBox.
Persistency: Seaside is a web application framework, not a persistency framework. You can use whatever persistency solution fits you the best, e.g. GemStone, GOODS, GLORP, ...
Also see these other questions/discussions on StackOverflow:
What is the difference between Seaside programmming and other web programming
Is Seaside still a valid option?
I can say something on the Iliad side:
Sweet spot(s): It handles AJAX painlessly. For me, that was the turning point that made me switch to Iliad. Also, it's so small and non-bloated that you can read the whole code in a day and have a grasp on how it works.
Weaknesses: The community is also very small. This results in a lack of documentation, additional modules or pre-made widgets. OTOH, small communities tend to be willing to help each other more eagerly, so pretty much all your doubts can be solved by asking at the mailing list.
URLs: Well, since all calls in Iliad are AJAX by default, the URL stays clean the whole time.
Ajax: Yep. For free and by default. You just #markDirty a widget and it'll update automatically. Dependencies are as easy to define as sending #addDependantWidget: to a widget, so that when the first is marked dirty, both will be updated. Also, if the client doesn't have a javascript capable browser, all calls will fall back to regular HTTP requests automatically.
Persistence: No preference. Since the model is separated from the framework (I think this applies for the three frameworks) you can still follow the same guidelines you would for Aida or Seaside.
And for Aida/Web:
Sweet spots: Realtime web support out of the box, for both content websites and complex web apps, HTML5 and mobile support, web server included so it works immediately after installation, you can serve many virtual websites from the same image.
Weaknesses: lack of documentation, small community
URLs: clean REST-like URLs all the time, because Aida follows from the start the moto: every domain object can have its URL (also by Alan Kay) and domain object can even choose its URL by itself.
Ajax: Seamlessly integrated, you don't see it anymore, all is just there. To refresh some element on webpage you simply call e update. No need to know any jQuery or some other JavaScript. Same goes for realtime web apps as well. WebSocket protocol is default communication channel on supported browsers to exchange JSON messages between browser and Aida based server.
Persistence: Image based persistence with automatic snapshot every hour is turned on by default. Gemstone/GLASS support provided for the next step. Relational/other DB is a duty of domain level, if needed.
For more:
Comparison of Smalltalk web frameworks from Aida centric
perspective
ToDo example in Aida/Web shows the newest realtime web/HTML5
features, as part of Comparison by example initiative
For some persistency solutions for Seaside, there is a page. Most of the solutions there are independent of Seaside.
I've been recommended the Click framework from Apache. But I can't find any forums talking about benchmark, reviews, advantages, disavantages, usefulness, ease of implementation, etc.
I've been asked to use it to develop a web site, but I'm completly in the dark about its strengths and weaknesses.
And its damn name isn't helping !! Click ? Hey Apache ! Call your next framework "the" just for fun. I dare you.
So can anyone comment on his experience with Click ?
What I personally like about the Click framework is that it is fairly close to HTML/HTTP and the Servlet API. There is no huge abstraction to get familiar with. You have a Page class, a Form class, ... If you need to preserve state across invocations you put it in the session or you pass it through the URL... This makes it easy to start using it. It is also straightforward to control the HTML pages being generated. It may sound like it is a very basic framework but the simplicity is actually one of it greatest strengths.
Other frameworks (e.g. Seam) are more suitedr to create a very large web application with lots of reusable components and complicated pageflows but the learning curve is much steeper. So for me Click works well for small to medium sized websites.
It's an apache incubator project but that does not mean the project is not stable, rather it reflects that it is in transition to the Apache project model.
Click is Apache's version of a component based web framework equivalent to JSF (other component base Java Frameworks are Tapestry and Wicket)
Click is rated at Ohloh
There is an official blog and some Wikipedia references: Framework Comparision and info page
In the bad old days of interactive console applications, Don Libes created a tool called Expect, which enabled you to write Tcl scripts that interacted with these applications, much as a user would. Expect had two tremendous benefits:
It was possible to script interactions that otherwise would have had to be repeated by hand, tediously. A classic example was dialup Internet access hell (from the days before PPP).
It was possible to write scripts to test one's own interactive applications, programmatically, as part of a regression suite.
Today most interactive applications are on the web, not on the console. Hence my question: is there any tool that provides the ability to interact with web pages and web forms programmatically, much as Expect provides the ability to interact with console applications programmatically?
(The closest thing I am aware of is Chickenfoot.)
You might be looking for Selenium
I've used Selenium RC in conjunction with Python to drive web page interactions programmatically. This has allowed me to write pretty extensive user tests in which forms and inputs are driven and their results are measured.
Check out the Selenium IDE on Firefox (as mentioned above). It allows you to record tests in the browser and play them back, either using the IDE itself, or the Remote Control app.
Perl Mechanize works pretty well for this exact issue.
HTTPS and some authentication issues are tricky at times. I will be posting couple questions about those in the future.
I did a ton of Expect work in a former life and always thought Don Libes' Expect book was one of the best-written and most enlightening technical books I'd ever seen.
Hands down I would say that Perl's WWW::Mechanize library is what you want. I note above that you were having trouble finding documentation. There is good documentation for it! Look up the module's distribution on search.cpan.org and see what all is packaged with it. There's a FAQ, Cookbook with examples, etc. Plus I've always been able to get help on the web. If you can't get it here, try at use.perl.org or perlmonks.org. WWW::Mechanize's author, Andy Lester, is present on Stack Overflow. (He's also an all around friendly and helpful guy.)
I believe WWW::Mechanize also has a program that is analogous to Expect's autoexpect program: you set up a proxy process running this program as a server, point your browser to it as a proxy, perform the actions you want to automate, and then the proxy program gives you a WWW::Mechanize program for you to use as a base for your project. (If it works like autoexpect, you will certainly want to make modifications from there.)
As mentioned above, WWW::Mechanize is a browser (to be more exact, it is a web client or http client) that happens to be programmable. The last time I looked, there was even work in progress to make it support JavaScript.
In addition to Selenium, if you're doing the Ruby/Rails thing, there's Webrat.