[Bese-devel] Keeping the core library separate from the extensions

[Daniel Salama]

On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:07 PM, hbabcockos1 at mac.com wrote:

>
> On Jul 24, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Lou Vanek wrote:
>
>> Marijn Haverbeke wrote:
>>> I'd like to hear people's thoughts about the idea of making a  
>>> clear distinction between the core UCW library (request-response  
>>> loop, frames, components, actions), andl the extensions to this  
>>> system (input fields, validators, dojo stuff, some of the things  
>>> Attila is brewing up in the ajax branch), possibly also  
>>> separating the extensions into different modules. I personally  
>>> think this would have the advantage of clarity, and of being able  
>>> to re-use the core in widely different ways (we're all hackers  
>>> who like to re-invent stuff) without having to 'fight' the library.
>>> For one thing, I feel that the javascript that is generated when  
>>> you make a form call an action should be optional. It doesn't  
>>> really serve a purpose in the general case, and I'm not using it,  
>>> but it is dragging in the whole dojo dependency. I know just  
>>> including dojo.js won;'t kill me, but I'm something of an HTML  
>>> minimalist who hates to have cruft in his pages that is not  
>>> necessary. (I can't help it.) I still haven't really studied the  
>>> ajax branch, but I'm a bit worried that there will be a rather  
>>> strong coupling between Attila vision of an UCW app and the  
>>> library itself.
>>> Hope to hear your reactions,
>>> Marijn
>>
>> I completely agree. You've put into words what I have only recently
>> come to understand. UCW is turning into an intranet framework, which
>> wouldn't bother me at all if the extra cruft were optional, but
>> in some cases it isn't. Just to do a 302 redirect you have to make
>> sure you've downloaded a 130K+ javascript file first, and this op can
>> happen frequently. I know the js should have been cached, but this
>> is a symptom of how the framework is requiring too much bandwidth. I
>> have to admit I haven't tried the ucw_ajax branch, though, so maybe
>> Attila has successfully incorporated dojo. If ucw_ajax were a module
>> i would have already downloaded and seen first hand.
>
> I also agree with the sentiment. However, my impression is that UCW  
> isn't so far away from this right now. UCW already has simple-form  
> for javascript free forms. I understand that Attila has a simple- 
> window class in ucw_ajax for creating components that don't  
> automatically put a request for dojo.js into the HTML page header.  
> That, I believe, only leaves actions, but those don't seem to use/ 
> require javascript at the moment.
>
> -Hazen

Being still somewhat of a newbie and haven't really developed any ucw  
or ucw+ app worth describing, I do come from the Rails world. Coming  
from that world, I would tend to agree that you would need JS in  
order to make anything semi-useful and appealing to the web-user  
community, since that the best that the Rails-alike can do.

I was mainly sold on the ucw idea because of the implementation of a  
continuation framework and the advantages that has over the Rails- 
alike (aside from the benefit of the whole LISP-based development  
mindset). I haven't used ucw much yet, but I have had more experience  
with Seaside/Squeak, and personally think that adding too much JS or  
mixing too much of the core with the ajax world, sort of takes credit  
away from what ucw and it's concept in general have come to achieve  
thus far.

 From what I've read and seen, I only feel that the nicer effects  
that the ajax world offers (fades, visual effects, etc) would be the  
only thing I would eventually consider using, since I personally  
don't rely on JS to do any sort of real-life, mission critical  
application validation and always rely on back-end processing, which  
is what I love the most about ucw.

I also want to make sure not to take credit away from anyone's  
effort, specially Attila. The work done thus far is really nice. It's  
just my personal preference of using ajax vs what ucw was offering  
before ajax.

Just my $0.02

- Daniel