[Seaside] Re: Seaside and REST

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Thu Mar 29 17:42:11 UTC 2007

Yes, that's my point exactly. Being told "go away and use a different 
framework" is about the least helpful answer one can get. If there are 
rules for when to use what I'd love to learn about them.

   - Andreas

Daryl Richter wrote:
> 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.
>> Cheers!
>> -Boris
>> (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
>>>>>> resource?
>>>>> 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:
>>>      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:www.lukas-renggli.ch
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lukas

More information about the seaside mailing list