10 ms·

Here is a copy of the email I received: We apologize for the significant inconvenience caused by our developer website downtime. We've been working around the

Here is a copy of the email I received: We apologize for the significant inconvenience caused by our developer website downtime. We've been working around the clock to overhaul our developer systems, update our server software, and rebuild our entire database. While we complete the work to bring our systems back online, we want to share the latest with you. We plan to roll out our updated systems, starting with Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles, Apple Developer Forums, Bug Reporter, pre-release developer libraries, and videos first. Next, we will restore software downloads, so that the latest betas of iOS 7, Xcode 5, and OS X Mavericks will once again be available to program members. We'll then bring the remaining systems online. To keep you up to date on our progress, we've created a status page to display the availability of our systems. If your program membership is set to expire during this period, it will be extended and your app will remain on the App Store. If you have any other concerns about your account, please contact us. Thank you for your continued patience.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- ulfw 13y ago
  Doubtful, as the same text is posted on their public-facing website...
1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
What's interesting about this rebuild is it tell us Apple tightly couples it's services. I would except at Apple's scale they would have followed a Service Oriented Architecture. This doesn't seem to be the case at all. And whatever happened to static hosting for videos/downloads.
- ashishgandhi 13y ago
  As of now right now (~1374712460) there are two systems that are online: iTunes Connect and Bug Reporter. And both seem to use the cannot-be-killed* WebObjects. You can clearly see that in the URLs as they mention "WebObjects" and end in ".woa" (assuming it means Web Objects Application). *I've no idea what WebObjects are but I've heard people poke fun at their mention. Would be interesting if someone had more details to share. Side Note: If you are looking to install Command Line Tools and seem to be unable to install Xcode from the App Store. You can go to Xcode > Preference and install it. Screen shot from a couple of minutes ago: http://i.imgur.com/KEhjkE3.png http://i.imgur.com/KEhjkE3.png
  - dietrichepp 13y ago
    WebObjects is a web application framework. It's OLD old. It's about ten years older than Ruby on Rails, putting it on par with PHP and Ruby itself. NeXT made it and Apple decided to make it free. It was Objective-C and is now Java.
    - Tloewald 13y ago
      Web Objects was amazing for its time. It actually utilized server-side image maps to make web pages responsive before JavaScript took off.
    - ams6110 13y ago
      It's not any older than Interface Builder and other stuff in the Mac OS dev toolkit, as all of that came from NeXT. I would guess though that it has not been maintained or updated.
    - coldcode 13y ago
      I used WO in the late nineties and it was way ahead of its time. Enterprise Objects (which morphed into Core Data) was an amazing tool for working with databases. Today it's pretty obsolete and it's not easy to find people.
    - glhaynes 13y ago
      It's OLD old. Steve Jobs used to hawk it on 486s while wearing ripped jeans. http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/Steve%20Jobs%20at%20Next%20Computer%20in%201993%20AP.jpg http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/Steve%20Jobs...
  - RKearney 13y ago
    I don't know about you, but I can't convert epoch time in my head and I don't know anyone who can. What's benefit is there to posting epoch time instead of in ISO 8601 format?
  - jrochkind1 13y ago
    WebObjects is kind of like Rails, but 20 years earlier. (Seriously, it's actually very similar to Rails, in it's bones. I don't know if dhh had seen WebObjects, or they just both had seen some smalltalk mvc framework) They inherited it from NeXT, and it seriously was really ahead of it's time originally. Hell, it was a technically competent and competitive web framework through, oh, 2002 or 2004, maybe even a few years after that. (Can you tell I used to develop for it?) But it ended up not being a market Apple wanted to be in, selling a web development framework, and it didn't get much attention, it withered on the vine. (Even if it had... 20 years of legacy is not good for a web framework, it would probably still suck by now -- and who wants a proprietary rather than open source web framework, if they can avoid it?). But they kept using it internally anyway long after they stopped marketting it or selling it externally. Anyhow, it's really hilarious if the legacy WebObjects part of Apple's web infrastructure are actually the parts that are still up. Hilarious in a pleasant way for those of us who used to use and love WebObjects back in the day.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ulfw 13y ago
Doubtful, as the same text is posted on their public-facing website...

1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago

What's interesting about this rebuild is it tell us Apple tightly couples it's services. I would except at Apple's scale they would have followed a Service Oriented Architecture. This doesn't seem to be the case at all. And whatever happened to static hosting for videos/downloads.

ashishgandhi 13y ago
As of now right now (~1374712460) there are two systems that are online: iTunes Connect and Bug Reporter. And both seem to use the cannot-be-killed* WebObjects. You can clearly see that in the URLs as they mention "WebObjects" and end in ".woa" (assuming it means Web Objects Application). *I've no idea what WebObjects are but I've heard people poke fun at their mention. Would be interesting if someone had more details to share. Side Note: If you are looking to install Command Line Tools and seem to be unable to install Xcode from the App Store. You can go to Xcode > Preference and install it. Screen shot from a couple of minutes ago: http://i.imgur.com/KEhjkE3.png http://i.imgur.com/KEhjkE3.png
- dietrichepp 13y ago
  WebObjects is a web application framework. It's OLD old. It's about ten years older than Ruby on Rails, putting it on par with PHP and Ruby itself. NeXT made it and Apple decided to make it free. It was Objective-C and is now Java.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Web Objects was amazing for its time. It actually utilized server-side image maps to make web pages responsive before JavaScript took off.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    It's not any older than Interface Builder and other stuff in the Mac OS dev toolkit, as all of that came from NeXT. I would guess though that it has not been maintained or updated.
  - coldcode 13y ago
    I used WO in the late nineties and it was way ahead of its time. Enterprise Objects (which morphed into Core Data) was an amazing tool for working with databases. Today it's pretty obsolete and it's not easy to find people.
  - glhaynes 13y ago
    It's OLD old. Steve Jobs used to hawk it on 486s while wearing ripped jeans. http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/Steve%20Jobs%20at%20Next%20Computer%20in%201993%20AP.jpg http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/Steve%20Jobs...
- RKearney 13y ago
  I don't know about you, but I can't convert epoch time in my head and I don't know anyone who can. What's benefit is there to posting epoch time instead of in ISO 8601 format?
- jrochkind1 13y ago
  WebObjects is kind of like Rails, but 20 years earlier. (Seriously, it's actually very similar to Rails, in it's bones. I don't know if dhh had seen WebObjects, or they just both had seen some smalltalk mvc framework) They inherited it from NeXT, and it seriously was really ahead of it's time originally. Hell, it was a technically competent and competitive web framework through, oh, 2002 or 2004, maybe even a few years after that. (Can you tell I used to develop for it?) But it ended up not being a market Apple wanted to be in, selling a web development framework, and it didn't get much attention, it withered on the vine. (Even if it had... 20 years of legacy is not good for a web framework, it would probably still suck by now -- and who wants a proprietary rather than open source web framework, if they can avoid it?). But they kept using it internally anyway long after they stopped marketting it or selling it externally. Anyhow, it's really hilarious if the legacy WebObjects part of Apple's web infrastructure are actually the parts that are still up. Hilarious in a pleasant way for those of us who used to use and love WebObjects back in the day.