[Seaside] Comparison of Aida/Web, Seaside and Iliad web frameworks
ramon.leon at allresnet.com
Tue Jun 21 21:30:43 UTC 2011
On 06/21/2011 02:01 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote:
> First calm down
I'm perfectly calm, why would you think otherwise? Don't confuse
directness with excitement or anger.
>> Seaside can do clean URL's
> It is a difference if this is essential part of a framework or it is
> "add on".
Overriding a method and saying this URL goes there is something you do
in pretty much any website in Seaside, it's domain specific, you do
clean URL's when you need clean URL's and use the automatic ones by
default in all other cases. That's not an add on, it's a technique.
> Again, in Aida every domain object can have an Url and this one is
> automatically generated. I'm not aware of such feature in Seaside.
And in Seaside, every callback gets an automatically generated URL, it's
Seasides greatest feature, no need to ever think about URL's at all,
unless you want to. You're taking a very specific thing that only AIDA
does and is not at all a common thing to a web framework and saying
other frameworks are missing it. So it might be good marketing, but
it's a bad comparison.
>> Seaside absolutely allows multiple websites served from one image
> Just recent thread shows that this is not true.
No, you read a thread that says it doesn't handle multiple domains based
on the host header by default. That's a vastly different thing and in
all seriousness, an utterly unimportant one. Apache or whatever front
end web server you're using should be doing that, not the web framework.
That's not a Seaside issue, it's a Kom issue. I can put 100 websites
all served from different domains into a single image if the front end
web server supports hosting 100 domains.
>> Seaside supports Comet
> I didn't question that, Comet is already checked. Which technique?
I may have misread that. Lukas comet package uses the never ending
iFrame technique. I've played around with long polling, but with
Seaside's global request lock per session it's problematic to do.
>> Seaside absolutely can do single page apps
> Be aware that we are comparing here out-of-the-box features and not
> add-ons, not to mention hacks needed for some feature.
Choosing to build your app as one page with AJAX or many with page
transitions has nothing to do with a feature comparison of web
frameworks. This just doesn't belong here at all.
> Tabulation with enter is surely very important for any accounting apps
> where you need to enter rapidly a large amount of numbers from numeric
> keypad only. Imagine one hand keying up those numbers, how will you pres
> Tab key that way?
Again, nothing to do with web frameworks. This all happens in the
browser, you aren't doing anything that any other website on the planet
You should remove from this comparison list everything that is just a
technique you use because techniques aren't features. In fact, if you
want a really fair comparison, you'd go find a comparison between say,
Rails and its competitors to get an idea of how your feature list
compares to what's expected to be in a web framework.
You just listed a bunch of stuff from AIDA, much of it application level
stuff you've implemented, that really has nothing to do with web
frameworks in general. You've mixed in web server, web framework, UI
framework, and random utility things all together. You should question
the presense of every single item where AIDA is yes and the other two
frameworks are no.
More information about the seaside