[Seaside] Truly Opaque URLs
boris at deepcovelabs.com
Fri Nov 30 17:54:47 UTC 2007
Okay, no flames is good. I think the easiest way you can get traction on
this list is by modding Seaside to do what you have in mind. It's a lot
easier to poll people when we're comparing two equally workable proven
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5
boris at deepcovelabs.com
This email is intended only for the persons named in the message
header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is
private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender and delete the entire message including any
> -----Original Message-----
> From: seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:seaside-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Jimmie Houchin
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:51 AM
> To: Seaside - general discussion
> Subject: Re: [Seaside] Truly Opaque URLs
> Boris Popov wrote:
> > Oh, I just don't buy that without a much better backing.
> > What about Amazon's URLs?
> > pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1196443532&sr=8-1
> Actually I've spent a lot of time manipulating Amazon URLs. They are
> quite everything that a Seaside URL isn't supposed to be. State
> in a URL requiring marshalling of data from URL into the server.
> > Or eBay's?
> > QQfvcsZ1453QQsoprZ53000938
> > Do you consider them beautiful? Or any other more or less
> > solution out there? Simply put, the end user could care less about
> > URL if the app does what users want.
> Do I consider what beautiful? Amazon or eBays? No, absolutely not. A
> yuck! Do I consider Seaside's beautiful? No.
> But I do believe a RESTful like URL preceding an opaque ID at the end,
> and the shorter the opaque ID can be the better, is a reasonable and
> more beautiful solution.
> > Before someone brings up bookmarkability, I'll step in and warn that
> > has nothing with how URL looks :)
> > Now let me go back and don my fireproof suit.
> Nah, we can be civil. :)
> I was just tossing out an idea. It can be shot down and deemed bad,
> ugly, unreasonable, unworkable, without merit or whatever. But if
> don't get brought up and discussed we'll never know. :)
> I realize I might have a different opinion on this than most of the
> Seaside fan/user base. But that's ok.
> I do like elegant URLs. I know Seaside has a reason for having IDs in
> its URLs. I do believe/hope they can be less ugly than they are. I do
> like elegant looking things. Aesthetics matter. After all we are using
> Smalltalk and not Perl. (ducks, sorry Randal. :)
> Why are we embedding things in the URL that can be manipulated? I have
> read messages in this list on deleting X portion of the URL to achieve
> certain affects.
> If we say that we don't want users to be able to do such. Then we
> eliminate such. Personally, I don't want users to manipulate variable
> content in the URL. Even if it is just an ID.
> I know that those of us who look at URLs and even are bold enough to
> manipulate URLs are not the majority of users. But that's no reason to
> keep the current URLs verses my opaque URLs. If there are reasons to
> keep the current scheme verses my idea, fine. But I don't buy this
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the seaside