[Seaside] Meaningful URLs was (Re: HV intro...) on the Squeak list

Jimmie Houchin jhouchin@texoma.net
16 Apr 2002 10:08:06 -0500


I have not had much opportunity to delve into Seaside, but this message
caught my attention when it was posted to the Squeak list.

>From my understanding from the below, Seaside does not not have
"meaningful URLs" which could be bookmarked? Do I understand correctly?

>From my understanding there should be nothing mutually exclusive about
having an understandable "meaningful" URLs and (sessions and
transactions).

One thing I always liked about Zope is the that URLs are understandable
and bookmarkable. I like that as a website user. I patently despise
ugly, unreadable URLs.

Zope is dynamic, sessionable, and transactioning.

Do I misunderstand something about Seaside and Zope?
I am not current on Zope at the moment.

What about Seaside requires non-meaningful URLs?
What about the features that Seaside aspires to have requires
non-meaningful URLs.

URLs which are bookmarkable and emailable are a valuable feature. One
that I greatly desire. I don't think that dynamism, et al, require
giving up such. (From my naive point of view).

Thanks for any help at understanding Seasides point of view on this both
technically and philosophically. :)

Jimmie Houchin



On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 13:47, Avi Bryant wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Nevin Pratt wrote:
> 
> > >Hmm.  By the same logic, Squeak should abandon Morphic and move to the
> > >VisualWorks UI framework.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with Tim, simply because he added the qualifier "as much as
> > possible" (whatever that means) :-)
> 
> Well, and since I've been suggesting to you off list that we could emulate
> what you need from SSP in Seaside, you know that I basically agree as
> well. ;-)  But I really do think that the "as much as possible" is a lot
> closer to the Comanche layer, than to the higher level frameworks.
> 
> For example, Seaside does not have meaningful URLs, stateless operation,
> or arbitrary character-level munging of HTML.  Now, for a lot of purposes,
> giving these things up is perfectly reasonable for everything you get in
> return.  But if you're building a non-transactional, non-sessioned, mostly
> static site that needed to be heavily bookmarked, SSP would make far more
> sense than trying to graft those features onto Seaside.  I think there are
> some fundamental divisions in approach to web development (like
> stateful/stateless) that don't necessarily want to be unified.
> 
> (Marcel, feel free to jump in here with your micro-transactions that do
> exactly that ;-)
> 
> 
>