[Seaside] Re: Seaside and REST
boris at deepcovelabs.com
Thu Mar 29 15:24:26 UTC 2007
Well that's right, who's to say that a GET to a PHP or Perl script won't do something destructive? Framework can only do so much, and its certainly up to develorers to try to make sure their application is crawlable if they care.
(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 08:20:16 2007
Subject: Re: [Seaside] Re: Seaside and REST
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
Seaside mailing list
Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the seaside