Rapid Application Development using Naked Objects for .NET
- Share
-
- |
Read later
My Reading List
Richard Pawson of Naked Objects offers brief history of the framework and introduction to Naked Objects for .NET. Naked objects can be seen as Domain Driven Design taken to the extreme. With proper annotation, this framework can automatically generate a matching presentation layer in Java or .NET.
Of course not everyone agrees with this philosophy. As an editor for InfoQ and a developer in my own right, I have traditionally looked at frameworks like this with suspicion. But when you really need to get something in front of the users now, with no time for usability or aesthetics, then this type of technology does show promise.
What is the this, an infomercial?
by
Robin Clowers
There is a huge usability problem with this type of application; not to say it can't work, but people will have to change the way they work to fit the software, rather than the other way around.
Take a look at this article: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Naked Objects Meet the Interface.
Awesome!
by
John DeHope
Re: What is the this, an infomercial?
by
Jonathan Allen
This is the same deal we use for many of the technologies we want to introduce. If we get a lot of positive feedback on the article, then we will write more traditional news pieces on it. If not, then I'll drop it from our watch list.
Re: What is the this, an infomercial?
by
Javier Paniza
There is a huge usability problem with this type of application; not to say it can't work,
Then the solution is adding usability to this approach instead of reject it.
Maybe if we drop (or refine) the point 2 of Naked Object principle we can achieve usability. In other words, what if the UI is not a direct representation of the domain objects, but we can refine the presentation using annotation and a controller layer?
Look at this java.net article about automatic UI generation.
Time to update your evaluation, I suggest
by
Richard Pawson
Larry Constantine wrote that article in 2002 - based on Naked Objects 1.0 (the Java version is now on 4.0). His arguments were (mostly) wrong then; they are simply irrelevant now.
You need to understand that, strangely, Larry has always hated the general concept of object-oriented user interfaces (ignoring all the research showing their usuabiliy advantages). Easier to understand is that he has always hated the concept of auto-generated user interfaces. Naked Objects combines both ideas - a double whammy!
Your statement that "people will have to change the way they work to fit the software, rather than the other way around" is, I'm afraid, very naive. All software forces people to change the way they work, by definition. Plenty of research shows that there is no such thing as an intuitive UI. There is only familiarity. To a user that has been force-fed Windows Forms or web-based applications for years(which typically have shocking usability) then, granted, Naked Objects will be unfamiliar, and training is required. But, as we have always said Naked Objects is suited to 'sovereign' and not 'transient' applications (Alan Cooper's terms) - and the former always require some learning, because of their inherent sophistication.
What frustrates me most when people assert that Naked Objects is forcing something onto users for the convenience of software developers, is that they are ignorant of the roots of Naked Objects. It did not grow out of an attempt to improve software productivity and agility (though that is certainly a benefit), but rather from my own research into how to design systems that were more 'expressive' to the user (treated the user as a problem-solver not a process-follower). If you are not familiar with this, I would urge you to watch this video, which was recorded in 2001: www.nakedobjects.net/demo/demo_intro.shtml#expr...
It might just change your perspective.
Incidentally, my challenge to Larry at the time of his tirade was this: how come I can't find the word 'empowerment' (or any synonym thereof) in the index of any of his books, or any book about usability (and I have many).
Partly why we get this reaction from the usability community is, I believe, that we have touched a raw nerve. To use a biblical metaphor: 'they have choked on a gnat, but swallowed a camel'.
Richard Pawson
Customisation of the UI
by
Richard Pawson
Hardly anyone, in fact, starts out believing that the generic user interface provided by Naked Objects would be acceptable for a delivered application - but they can see its power as a tool for capturing business requirements in the form of a usable domain model. What surprises them is that in certain cases not only is the generic Naked Objects user interface quite acceptable for a real business application - it is actually very good - because once a user has learned the basic forms of interaction, the modeless style of operation is very empowering. One important caveat: the generic UI is suitable only for sovereign applications - not for transient applications such as a publicly-accessed systems (where you do need a custom, scripted UI).
Is it possible to implement a workflow system
by
chen jianwu
But when come to more complex business logic, it will have difficulties. For example, in a work flow system, the workflow will have many states, the available actions are determined by actor, the state and the context, the internal state transition may also be complex. Is it possible to support this kind of application.
Re: What is the this, an infomercial?
by
David Rozenberg
Re: Is it possible to implement a workflow system
by
David Rozenberg
Re: Time to update your evaluation, I suggest
by
David Rozenberg
Re: Is it possible to implement a workflow system
by
Richard Pawson
Nonetheless, let me make it clear that Naked Objects can support very complex business logic. It is perfectly possible for a domain object to have a status, for the logic of those status-transitions to be complex, and for the actions available to the user to depend upon the status of the object. (This is done, dynamically, by means of HideXxx and/or DisableXxx methods, where Xxx is the corresponding action.
The actions available may also be determined by the actor (or, more specifically, by the role(s) that the actor has). This is administered outside the system as is usual.
Licensing
by
Mark N
Re: Licensing
by
Richard Pawson
Richard.
Re: Licensing
by
Mark N
Re: Licensing
by
Dan Haywood
Speaking as one of the main contributors to the Java version, the reason that the Java license is open source (Apache License v2) is that in Java-land it's just not realistic to charge for this kind of software. After all, one can get complete J2EE app servers for zero dollars. The .NET marketplace is different; it's defined by Microsoft who as we know absolutely aren't in the game of giving away their software.
Dan
Re: Licensing
by
Mark N
Re: Licensing
by
Dan Haywood
Absolutely, the Java version is under active development! Like the .NET version, the new version 4.0 has had some serious reworking. It still supports the original two viewers, but there is also a sister project, scimpi, which Rob Matthews is working on, that provides a customisable web UI. I've also been working on sister projects to provide an Eclipse RCP viewer and a RESTful webservice, as well as an updated JPA-based object store. These won't be part of NOF 4.0 but I'll be carrying on working on them throughout this year.
You might also be interested to know that hopefully next month my forthcoming book ("Domain Driven Design using Naked Objects", Pragmatic Bookshelf) will go into beta PDF form. It's being written against NOF 4.0 so is bang up-to-date.
Cheers
Dan
Re: Time to update your evaluation, I suggest
by
Niall Barry
True Domain-Driven Design, as I understand it, by definition actually reflects the way that people work. The struggle in the enterprise is developing and maintaining the basic understanding of DDD. Once that's there to any significant degree, then the Naked Objects approach, in my experience, is a brilliant way of implementing that idea. The generation of the user interface serves two major purposes in that it allows us to focus on the business logic (a major saving in many ways) and its user interface, far from being an obstacle, actually helps to focus on/re-inforce the ubiquituous language that is the essential (for me) part of DDD. Once the initial unfamiliarity (caused to some degree by deficiencies in more traditional approaches) is over, there is very widespread acceptance of the UI.
Re: Licensing
by
Mark N
I had forgotten there was an Eclipse RCP UI. I re-ran across that last night.
Thx for the heads up on scimpi. Googled it and added it to Delicious.
I thought by now i would have a few projects using NO especially after it change the Java license to Apache. But as usual, things never go as planned. As i have said elsewhere, I have been following NO for years (6+ at least).
Educational Content
Large-Scale Continuous Testing in the Cloud
John Penix May 24, 2013
.jpg)
Managing Build Jobs for Continuous Delivery
Martin Peston May 24, 2013
Clojure in the Field
Stuart Halloway May 23, 2013
Hello stranger!
You need to Register an InfoQ account or Login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.
Tell us what you think