[Seaside] [RFT] New web project

[William Harford]

On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Jason Johnson wrote:

> William Harford wrote:
>
> Maybe you could provide a real world type case where this makes  
> life a lot easier for the user?  And remember my criteria for a  
> good web framework is the further you can go without writing code  
> the better the frame work.
>

Imagine you have users in your application. You application provides  
a login system and has it's own internal list of users.

Say you have a client that comes along and wants to log into your  
application as well but they want to use there list of users and  
passwords. In a relational system this is a major problem because  
your user id is most likely stored all over the place and your  
application assumes that the users all are of the same type (lets say  
are all stored in a user table with a unique id to that table). In an  
OODB this is no big deal you just store the reference to the new user  
object just like you store the existing user object.

I am not sure the above is clear but think of it this way.

Relational databases are statically typed and tend to be inflexible.  
Smalltak is not and is extremely flexible. By tying your framework a  
Relational database you loose some of the flexibility of Smalltalk.

<plug type="shameless">
	
If you do decide to use a relational database may I sugest that you  
abstract the relational part as much as possible by using a library  
like REServe ( http://squeaksource.com/REServe.html ) . It handles  
most of the SQL/Relational nastiness for you. It also abstracts the  
relational nature of SQL databases enough that it leaves open the  
door for in image storage as well as some object oriented database  
options.

</plug>


> Oh, I intend for us to stick out. :)  But I'm a little confused on  
> this point still.  I kind of saw the pinnacle of GUI programming as  
> MVP, which is an abstraction.  Are you saying the way to go is to  
> abandon the abstractions and put that kind of knowledge back with  
> the data, etc.?

Sort of yea. You could still represent object in different ways but  
have a defining view. That is a view that not only allows you to  
create the object but is also useful in viewing/editing/add objects  
as well. I see it as the main way of interacting with an item.

You might want to play with Self a little http://research.sun.com/ 
self/language.html . Or try playing with eToys. I personly don't see  
any problem with object being represented visually and that visual  
representation being that main point of interaction.

You also might want to check out the Alternate Reality Kit http:// 
www.open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8050


> As far as I know MS Access, VB, Borland and all those guys try to  
> do a kind of MVC but they jam the M and the VC so closely together  
> that your data ends up hopelessly bound to display.  Which might be  
> good if you write a little tiny app, but the more complicated your  
> data gets the more abstractions help.

If you make it to complicated to build the tiny app no one will even  
get that far. If I want to keep track of contacts I don't want to  
have to write a Model then do a view than make a controller to keep  
it all together. I want to drag some fields with labels on the screen  
and type in the values.

The challenge will then be to take this tiny app that someone has  
created by dragging objects around and make it more useful in an ever  
changing environment.

>
> And I hope I am not coming off as being critical of you or anyone  
> else's ideas.

Lets hope that no one is that sensitive.

> I am glad to see ideas expressed so we can, hopefully, end up with  
> a really advanced system.  But I just have to keep an eye out for  
> the common case and the common user.

I guess we have to define the "common user". I would like to see  
development expanded to non developers. In your face MVC type  
abstractions are way to complicated to non-developers. They want  
WYSIWYG. To them a value is the thing they see on the screen not some  
distantly abstracted value thats stored as a series of bits.

Lets face it most business applications are not intellectually  
complicated, only building them is.

Thanks
Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside