[Seaside] Seaside2: separation between content and presentation

[Alain Fischer]

Le Mardi 3 d=E9cembre 2002, =E0 12:30 , Avi Bryant a =E9crit :

>
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 tblanchard@mac.com wrote:
>
>> WO adds EOF.  EOF is a really amazing Object to Relational mapping
>> architecture.
>> Without EOF I probably wouldn't bother with WO but EOF is where the
>> real value is.
>>
>> I'm looking at glorp but its rather intimidating (lots of this squeak
>> stuff is - good examples are scarce).  WO provides nifty bindings to
>> EOF via keypaths (which I noticed somewhere you have) and handles db
>> connection pooling.  So that's a big advantage.
>
> One of the things Colin and I are working on right now for Tantalus =
(the
> O/R framework we use internally, but that occasionally sees open=20
> releases)
> is the ability to use a .eomodeld to describe the mapping - this =
should
> make migration a lot easier for EOF users.  Tantalus is not yet up to=20=

> EOF
> standards (one thing it sorely lacks is a good query facility, which
> GLORP does have, I think...) but it'll get there eventually; if you're
> interested in using/improving it, let us know.

I have tested Tantalus and it is very near to EOF.
FYI, I was able to run on Mac OS X with postgreSQL throught ODBC.
I intend to see if I could run it with FrontBase which is our production=20=

database.
If I can use .eomodeld it will be easy to test some parts of our WO=20
applications
with seaside and Tantalus.

>> Those are two of the biggest items - getting db access and it feels a
>> bit like the model view separation is still not quite cooked.
>
> Can you elaborate?  I don't buy that WO has any more separation - does
> anybody ever treat the template/bindings/class triad as anything but a
> single unit?  The tools sure don't make that convenient.  If you =
wanted
> more separation in Seaside, an obvious thing to do would be to pair =
each
> component class with one or more view classes, and move the rendering
> logic to the views - I don't see an advantage to enforcing that,=20
> however.
>
>> One other nifty thing WO does is sit behind a conventional web server
>> via a CGI, modapache, or nsapi adaptor that does load balancing =
across
>> several application instances.  I don't know what the load balancing
>> strategy for Seaside is.  How do you scale it up?  I'm also not
>> convinced that Commanche is nearly as robust as apache both stability
>> wise and performance wise.  For smaller sites, this isn't likely a =
big
>> deal.  But I know how to scale huge WO apps - can't say I can say the
>> same for Seaside.
>
> This is work that will have to be done the first time someone needs to
> scale a Seaside app up to that level.  It's not very hard work (I've
> written such interfaces before), the need just hasn't come up yet.
> There's nothing tying Seaside to Comanche but the single WAKom class,=20=

> that
> could easily be replaced by a WAFastCGI, for example, if someone took=20=

> the
> time to implement it.

What about the use of lisp_mod which was in 0.94 ?

>
> Avi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/seaside
>