GetIt inclusion

Javierus · 2024-10-15 14:10:29

@ab, the following is a copypaste of an Ian Baker post on the Delphi Developers Telegram group:

Ok, so I went to sleep - and when I woke up there were a few questions asked of me ?

Let me try and respond to the topics to which they apply..

mORMot. It was submitted (and listed) for RAD Studio 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and "Delphi 7 up". This was before I came to work for Embarcadero so I was not involved in that process.

It was *not* submitted by the project maintainers, we (actually an MVP) proactively listed it as far as I can see.

Since that time we've not had any resubmission or direct submission by the maintainers of the project.

If someone from that project wants to submit it to GetIt I will look over it myself and discuss it with the review team. If there is a reason why it can't be listed - and right now I am definitely not aware of one - then I'll get back to the maintainers and let them know and see what, if anything, can be done to resolve the situation.

I honestly can't see why it would be a problem though - maybe I am missing something?

Submission link is here: https://getitnow.embarcadero.com/submit/

Feel free to email me when the submission goes through although I will receive a notification anyway.

ab · 2024-10-15 16:10:04

Thanks for the feedback.

Who would like to make the official submission and/or maintain it in the future?
Due to my "history" with my own proposal back to 9 years ago, I am clearly the less credible for this process. I want to be able to drink beers with Marco at next Ekon.

I will make a release tomorrow, so we could work on submitting this version.

cadnan · 2024-10-16 09:22:54

Given that the company I work for has an Enterprise Delphi licenses for many years for a team of 10+ people and we do use mORMot, I could give it a try and take on this process.
Although we do have challenges with GetIt (like we cannot specify an exact version that we would like to download) I can still motivate that our company "really needs mORMot2 in GetIt"..

Another idea is to push mormot into https://delphi.dev/. Now this idea I like very much but it will take some time to have its momentum.

I cannot even try to explain the pain we (as a team) are having with Delphi and components. We are actively using Delphi 2007, Delphi 11 and Delphi 12 on the same machine with 15+ open source and commercial components installed. If all components would be like mormot (unpack and set path) what a joy life would be.

cadnan · 2024-10-17 06:33:01

I have started filling in the form for GetIt inclusion of mORMo2. It would be good if primarily Arnaud, but also other members of this community could give me some comments on the following:

1. We need to provide a "short" description of the product (yea, good luck with that with mORMot). Currently I just copy pasted the following: "An Open Source Client-Server ORM/SOA/MVC framework in modern Object Pascal". I personally think that this is not a fair description given that mORMot can do so much more, but it is a start.

2. We need to provide a link to the image to be used for the project, preferably in the size 154x154. My candidate: https://blog.synopse.info/public/blog/mORMot2-small.png

3. Project homepage: https://github.com/synopse/mormot2

4. Vendor name is Synopse. Vendor url is: https://synopse.info and vendor contact is email starting as webcontact01

5. Supported products: Delphi (I guess we do not support C++ Builder, right? I personally never tried such a combo)

6. Tags (search keywords): ORM, SOA, MVC, Web, REST, API, JSON, JWT, Crypt, OpenSSL, x509, LDAP, DB, SQLite, MongoDB, HTTP, WebSocket, Server, Client (please comment on these)

flydev · 2024-10-17 08:47:40

@cadnan, see gpt o1 suggestions:

https://gist.github.com/flydev-fr/844bd … a09a01153f

cadnan · 2024-10-17 09:53:23

Thanks @flydev for having a look at this! Great comments.

I am personally not a fan of LLMs but I agree that they can provide a rather professional summary of mORMot2 framework!

ab · 2024-10-17 15:52:46

You are great !

Seems fine to me.

Arnaud
(Stuck at Amsterdam air port due to delayed flight)

cadnan · 2024-10-18 06:47:24

Request for inclusion submitted!

At the end description I used was: "An Open Source high-performance framework for modern Object Pascal that enables ORM, SOA, MVC, RESTful APIs, and client-server applications development."
And tags that I used are: "ORM, SOA, MVC, REST, API, JSON, JWT, Cryptography, OpenSSL, X.509, LDAP, Database, SQLite, MongoDB, HTTP, HTTPS, TLS, WebSocket, Server, Client, Framework, Open Source, High Performance, Asynchronous, Web Services, RPC, NoSQL, SQL"

I've deliberately avoided cross-platform here as the cross-platform feature is not possible in Delphi itself but rather in FPC. I just wanted to minimize the potential discussion points with Embarcadero regarding inclusion of mORMot2 in GetIt.

Fingers crossed!

Arnaud, have a nice time in Denmark and Germany. Please share the slides once the events are finished (as you usually do).

danielkuettner · 2024-10-18 08:49:21

1. About the tags
1.1 Mainly mORMot is a server lib with features/tools you can't find in other libs. I would start the tags with those word (high performance cross-platform client/server lib for pascal).
1.2 There is a huge cryptographic part connectable with openssl you have all what anyone could want.
1.3 The handling of JSON and Variants is outstanding
1.4 The DB layer is also killer feature and the integration of Zeos makes it complete.

2. The Big Divide
Have I forget something important? Sure. But I would connect this post with The Big divide (https://synopse.info/forum/viewtopic.php?id=7027) and try to find out the main features and try to divide it when possible. So from a marketing pov it really make sense to split mORMmot in 2, 3 or 4 smaller GetIt's.

New users come mostly with specialized requirements and they don't need such a big framework/lib. Everybody of us prefer small specialized and optimized tools against huge ones (E.g. Zeos was the preferred DB-Layer for mORMmot in past, but than some reinvent the wheel and wrote his own connector for postgres -> yes, this is criticism).

So from marketing pov it really makes a difference and from a technical pov there should be solutions. So why hesitate to do it?

3. Naming
With splitting (point 2) the naming part would be much easier. But I think "mORMot" is misleading although everybody has learned to love it over the years. But are the oldies the future? No. We are talking about a bigger community, right? And therefore we have to focus on the new ones (and mostly younger ones).
ORM was a marketing thing 20 years ago. Why should we keep this name? Let us try to find a better one (or 4 better ones when divided/splitted).

4. Cross-Plattform (my initial thoughts to the last post from @cadnan)
Why hide this really great feature? We can using our software under Windows, Linux, BSD (and ARM). That's amazing! But we hide it because of Delphi? And here I see another big point:

When you @ab drink beer with Marco please suggest him to give up the Delphi compiler and just focus on a IDE for fpc. This is the way to go. Embarcadero could deliver a professional IDE for the fpc community and the open-source cross-platform compiler (fpc) does all the rest (and we all know he does it very, very good).

Atm I personally developing under Windows because of the high quality of the Delphi-IDE but just to deliver a product compiled with fpc to run on linux. That's not so efficient in my opinion.

Emba could safe much costs (I don't know how many employees work on compiler but there is sure a high potential) and sell much more units with that strategy.

Last edited by danielkuettner (2024-10-18 08:53:52)

ab · 2024-10-18 20:09:18

I remember writing about that since years: Embarcadero could ditch its own compiler, and use FPC, and contribute to FPC.
With the new inclusion of the "unicode mode" (i.e. string = UnicodeString), FPC can now compiles most of existing Delphi code with little modification (in the FPC trunk).
I remember they used FPC for some targets at first, when they acquired what became FireMonkey. Then they invested in their own cross-platform compiler, with LLVM as backend. I am not sure it was a good technical decision.
But I doubt they will go that direction. Anyway, we could propose that. They could go back and switch to FPC. As the DotNet target was ditched a few years ago.

For the GetIt inclusion, I thank you all very much.
We will see.

mORMot Open Source

#1 2024-10-15 14:10:29

GetIt inclusion

#2 2024-10-15 16:10:04

Re: GetIt inclusion

#3 2024-10-16 09:22:54

Re: GetIt inclusion

#4 2024-10-17 06:33:01

Re: GetIt inclusion

#5 2024-10-17 08:47:40

Re: GetIt inclusion

#6 2024-10-17 09:53:23

Re: GetIt inclusion

#7 2024-10-17 15:52:46

Re: GetIt inclusion

#8 2024-10-18 06:47:24

Re: GetIt inclusion

#9 2024-10-18 08:49:21

Re: GetIt inclusion

#10 2024-10-18 20:09:18

Re: GetIt inclusion

Board footer