[Seaside] Re: Seaside and REST
ngzax at comcast.net
Thu Mar 29 15:20:16 UTC 2007
On 3/29/07 10:06 AM, "Boris Popov" <boris at deepcovelabs.com> wrote:
> Umm, wouldn't you just avoid using anchor callbacks for things you don't want
> crawled? Its up to you as a developer to choose which element performs which
> function when you're putting your application together. If you follow the
> principle of using anchors for navigation and forms+buttons for modification
> you will get the effect you desire, not sure that seaside itself has to do
> much with the issue.
Although I may be showing my ignorance of Seaside (I'm pretty new to it), I
think this is just my point?
If the framework allows destructive operations through links (anchor
callbacks), the unsuspecting developer who doesn't understand the difference
between links vs. forms+buttons will be caught unaware.
I guess I am assuming that if a developer doesn't understand GET vs. POST,
he also doesn't understand links vs. forms and the implications of crawlers.
> (Sent from a BlackBerry)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> <seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> To: Squeak-Seaside <seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Thu Mar 29 04:42:26 2007
> Subject: Re: [Seaside] Re: Seaside and REST
> 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:
"Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something."
-- Thomas A. Edison
More information about the seaside