[Seaside] Seaside/Squeak/Linux: service with GUI as needed

Bill Schwab BSchwab at anest.ufl.edu
Tue Jul 15 22:42:35 UTC 2008


I certainly did not intentionally ignore OB.  However, it was easy to
do :)  Knowing there was more to see, I did some searching.  Even with
the pre-built image, the Seaside-driven part was a hassle to get
working, leaves a somewhat cumbersome setup of the server and web
browser running together, and (just my experience, however unfair)
appears to not work very well, for whatever reason.  No doubt, one would
run the image headless, and smooth over the rest of the installation. 
Still, it is a lot more complicated than the Pinesoft approach of
slapping pixels on the screen, and probably more complicated than using
wxWidgets, or whatever they call it now.

I am not particularly worried about a native widget interface.  My
experience is that users will tolerate almost any non-ugly look, but are
VERY fussy about feel.  The latter gets to "muscle memory," intuitive
design, and consistency of interaction.

Thanks for the insights into Seaside configuration!


Lukas Renggli renggli at gmail.com 
Tue Jul 15 19:15:59 UTC 2008

>  is possible.  Are there any tricks to it, other than setting up the
>  Squeak/Pharo image as a service?  Are the following links worthy of
>  attention?


Sure, that's about the setup I am using . The config file for Apache
looks like the one for my web-site, I guess this is a modified one
that I once published here in the list.

>  Re configuration, most of it would be things that I would do
>  Seaside.  The exact details (Seaside served from "the" image doing

That would be a cool project that could provide another brick into a
full-stack Seaside solution.

>  OmniBrowser is prominent in your reply.  What feature(s) of it earn
>  position?

You were talking about editing code from the web.

OmniBrowser is a browser framework that is independent of the GUI.
Most people probably use it with Morphic, but there is also an
interface to the web (not Seaside based) and XUL (Seaside based).
OmniBrowser has implementations of all the common code browser and a
full integration with the refactoring tools. Furthermore there are
implementations of workspace, transcript, file-browser, inspector,
debugger, process browser and monticello-tools available. OmniBrowser
is much more sophisticated than WABrowser and friends, and essentially
everything you need to de everything you need to do development.

I am just wondering why many people keep on ignoring it. I use
OmniBrowser exclusively for all my development for more than 2 years
now. It should replace all the crappy existing tools (but that's
another discussion).

>  RemoteFrameBuffer looks like it could be very useful, though it
>  to encrypt only for password exchange.  Do you have any concerns
>  its security?  Assuming I am seriously paranoid about such things
>  be with medical records), should *I* be concerned about its
security?  I
>  reserve the right to be concerned regardless of your reply, but I
>  curious about your take on it.

VNC is in-secure by design. It is supposed to be used through a SSH
connection as Avi describes.


Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: bschwab at anest.ufl.edu
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029

More information about the seaside mailing list