[Seaside] Seaside vs. Traditional
conradwt at gmail.com
Sun Mar 30 13:14:01 UTC 2008
Hi, in my short experience, it's well suited for both traditional and
dynamic content. For example, when developing in raw XHTML sites, I have
noticed a lot of duplication. How does one easily reuse chunks ofXHTML
across an entire site without using server side includes? Seaside allows
one to isolate these chunks
into neat components that can easily be used across their site(s). Next, I
have always looked at a framework as a whole before determining its
weakness. Just because Seaside doesn't have X feature that exists in
framework Y doesn't necessary count this as a weakness in Seaside. Why?
This may be a feature that's not needed at all within Seaside because it
does other things very well and/or there exists a better or another way to
do it. Finally, I don't want to see the Seaside framework cluttered with
stuff that it really doesn't need when their exists better ways of solving
the problem with the existing functionality.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 5:23 AM, cdrick <cdrick65 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/3/30, Philippe Marschall <philippe.marschall at gmail.com>:
> > 2008/3/30, Conrad Taylor <conradwt at gmail.com>:
> > > Hi, is there any particular reason for comparing Seaside with another
> > > framework in a Seaside mailing list?
> > Yes, I truly believe so. To better understand for which tasks Seaside
> > isn't suite, what problems people have with Seaside and of course what
> > strengths and advantages Seaside has over other frameworks.
> same... I feel seaside attracts lots of people and most of the time,
> they want just want to realize "classic web content" even if dynamic
> too. So Seaside is not particularly well suited. Especially since Pier
> can be the way to do such tasks in seaside...Precisions on strenghts
> of frameworks will really help whether seaside or whatever else.
> I think Sophie and Ramon picked up the framework really quickly for
> good reasons (even if apparently they had two different background
> with in common a good OO understanding ; Ramon was already a web dev
> and Sophie was new to web apps). Maybe they can help here. Colin
> explains it well too.
> My 2 cents about differences after my little investigations...
> I think the main visible difference between aida and seaside is the
> back button story (aiders correct me if I'm wrong) which allow
> different kind of apps.
> Seaside allows natively to track or not track state (variables and
> objets interaction), to isolate some flow too... But this is an extra
> job too.
> Aida back button will bring you "back, your page will be refreshed and
> you'll have a new, not old state of that object. A valid one, always"
> (quoted from Janko). Also, I notice removing cookies support in your
> broser enable different sessions in the same browser. But when hitting
> button in aida, there seems to be no registration in the browser
> history (so no back possibility) and this is not done in ajax.
> Both are ok to me. We just need to know. So what I call Desktop like
> app is total control on entries whereas classical web forms may not
> need this complexity. Note I don't say that Aida can't do that but it
> seems to me natively supported by seaside.
> ps: As a side note, discussion started on both lists (aida + seaside),
> but when answering I think we lost one and they it became two separate
> posts on both lists. So I add this mail to aida.
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the seaside