[Seaside] Re: What's the (technical) purpose of adding t/seaside/
to the path
jbjohns at libsource.com
Sat Jul 21 08:10:30 UTC 2007
Janko Mivšek wrote:
> Well, it doesn't have everything as Apache have, but goal of Swazoo is
> to stay simple and to delegate more demanding tasks to web frameworks.
I think that is a big part of the goal of Apache as well actually.
> Swazoo can serve one or many websites (virtual serving), each site
> have its hostname and can have aliases. About docs, yes, lacking, I
> know. I hope that with increased interest I would easily put together
> at least a FAQ. Maybe someone else is willing to help here?
I wasn't trying to beat you up about Documentation. In fact I wasn't
even implying that it wasn't there. Just that I was not able to find
it, which could have been my own fault.
> VW Seaside on Swazoo is already implemented that way. You have a
> SeasideSite to which a hierarchy of resources is added. Each such
> resource has an uriPattern. The last one is SeasideResource.
> UriPattern determines part of url this resource resolves. For
> instance, for default url of VW Seaside:
> you have following resource hierarchy and uri patterns:
> SeasideSite localhost:8008
> CompositeResource '/'
> CompositeResource 'seaside'
> SeasideResource 'go'
> You can therefore easily add your own resource wherever you want in
> that hierarchy. Not to mention that you can run a site with one
> framework and another site with other one. For instance, it is already
> possible to run Seaside and Aida/Web together on the same Swazoo server.
Cool. Is it documented anywhere how to set these up and what kinds of
arguments they can take?
>> I want to write a module (if the functionality isn't there already)
>> to allow me to password protect some links under my site
> We had a big debate back in 2000 when developing Swazoo, how to do
> that. And we were too much apart to agree with a common solution of
> security and session management in Swazoo. There were some tries to
> have a wrapper resource for that but that is depreciated currently. It
> seems that best way is that web frameworks deal with security, because
> they know much more about it than Swazoo alone.
Well, what I would say here is, I don't think your goal should be just
to support frame works. I would like to see Squeak/Smalltalk in general
have it's own web server that people would be interested in serving
their sites in, like Erlang has. That doesn't mean Swazoo needs to
support everything, but Apache doesn't either. It gains it's power by
allowing modules to control the various stages of serving resources.
Security is just a module in Apache, and you can put in anything you
want in there. I think that would be a good approach for Swazoo as
well. I don't expect Swazoo to handle it, but it should be possible for
someone to make a module that does handle it the way they think best.
In my opinion anyway. :)
> I hope I answered you a bit your questions
> Best regards
Of course. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
More information about the Seaside