[Seaside] Re: Seaside and REST
ngzax at comcast.net
Thu Mar 29 11:42:26 UTC 2007
On 3/29/07 5:03 AM, "Lukas Renggli" <renggli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> * GET vs. POST: One of the things that confused me about the simple
>>>> counter example already is that it uses POST instead of GET - isn't GET
>>>> supposed to be idempotent as well as not modifying the requested
>>> Frankly, if you are thinking about URLs and POST vs. GET, you should
>>> probably not use Seaside.
>> Frankly, giving a non-answer like this isn't exactly helpful.
> Seaside is for people that don't want to worry about low level details
> such as HTTP. It let them think about more important things when
> building a sophisticated application. Again if you want to fiddle
> around with URLs and worry about HTTP details you probably should use
> a different framework.
> Have a look at #navigation in WAAnchorTag. It creates an idempotent
> (navigational) action callback for anchors.
>> question. And I think the robots issue is a real one, too. Or do Seaside
>> apps somehow, magically, never get indexed?
> You see, Seaside is for sophisticated web *applications* and not web
> *sites*. Does it make sense to index an application like Microsoft
> Word? I doubt so.
Ah, but if they are on the internet, they *will* be indexed.
In the early days of Ruby on Rails framework development there was a a bit
of angst since the framework initially performed deletes using links that
used GET. People put their sites up, Google "indexed", bye-bye data.
So, while I totally agree that people creating a web site w/ Seaside
shouldn't need to know about GET, POST, &c., the developers of the framework
certainly should understand and use HTTP methods appropriately.
>> Can they even be indexed in any meaningful way?
> They certainly can, ask Google what it knows about my Pier site:
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have
to ram it down their throats."
-- Howard Aiken
More information about the seaside