<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7651.59">
<TITLE>Re: [Seaside] Re: Seaside and REST</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>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.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers!<BR>
<BR>
-Boris<BR>
(Sent from a BlackBerry)<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: seaside-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org <seaside-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org><BR>
To: Squeak-Seaside <seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org><BR>
Sent: Thu Mar 29 04:42:26 2007<BR>
Subject: Re: [Seaside] Re: Seaside and REST<BR>
<BR>
On 3/29/07 5:03 AM, "Lukas Renggli" <renggli@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>>>> * GET vs. POST: One of the things that confused me about the simple<BR>
>>>> counter example already is that it uses POST instead of GET - isn't GET<BR>
>>>> supposed to be idempotent as well as not modifying the requested<BR>
>>>> resource?<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Frankly, if you are thinking about URLs and POST vs. GET, you should<BR>
>>> probably not use Seaside.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Frankly, giving a non-answer like this isn't exactly helpful.<BR>
><BR>
> Seaside is for people that don't want to worry about low level details<BR>
> such as HTTP. It let them think about more important things when<BR>
> building a sophisticated application. Again if you want to fiddle<BR>
> around with URLs and worry about HTTP details you probably should use<BR>
> a different framework.<BR>
><BR>
> Have a look at #navigation in WAAnchorTag. It creates an idempotent<BR>
> (navigational) action callback for anchors.<BR>
><BR>
>> question. And I think the robots issue is a real one, too. Or do Seaside<BR>
>> apps somehow, magically, never get indexed?<BR>
><BR>
> You see, Seaside is for sophisticated web *applications* and not web<BR>
> *sites*. Does it make sense to index an application like Microsoft<BR>
> Word? I doubt so.<BR>
<BR>
Ah, but if they are on the internet, they *will* be indexed.<BR>
<BR>
In the early days of Ruby on Rails framework development there was a a bit<BR>
of angst since the framework initially performed deletes using links that<BR>
used GET. People put their sites up, Google "indexed", bye-bye data.<BR>
<BR>
So, while I totally agree that people creating a web site w/ Seaside<BR>
shouldn't need to know about GET, POST, &c., the developers of the framework<BR>
certainly should understand and use HTTP methods appropriately.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>> Can they even be indexed in any meaningful way?<BR>
><BR>
> They certainly can, ask Google what it knows about my Pier site:<BR>
><BR>
> <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:www.lukas-renggli.ch">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:www.lukas-renggli.ch</A><BR>
><BR>
> Cheers,<BR>
> Lukas<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Daryl<BR>
<BR>
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have<BR>
to ram it down their throats."<BR>
-- Howard Aiken<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Seaside mailing list<BR>
Seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside">http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside</A><BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>