[RFT] New web project
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hello all,
I still have a ways to go on a few of my other projects, but I am close enough that I thought it might be a good time to start finding out who all would be interested in being involved in a project I want to do. Rails is getting a fair amount of exposure for being a frame work that easily does the CRUD that most web sites need in some form. Joomla is a system that could be built on top of that, but isn't, it's in PHP. Joomla looks like the best system out there right now for setting up a web 2.0 site from scratch. You can build the entire thing without doing any coding. And lots of people (I mean *lots* of people) have written components for the system, so it can do most anything. But I think this could all be done in seaside. And I think once it's in seaside it could be more successful. It is one thing to write something, but it is something completely different to maintain it. I can't believe it is easy to maintain a system as big as Joomla in a language like PHP. And any language that doesn't have continuations is going to have to either simulate them manually, or do some other ugly hack to deal with how HTTP works. So I think that if the system were done in seaside it would be a great deal less code, and therefor easier to maintain, extend, etc. So what I am looking for with this RFT (request for teamates :) ) email is, who would be interested in working on a project with this as a goal? The first thing that needs to be done is RoR (Rails) functionality needs to be developed in Seaside. By that I don't mean make the system exactly. I think we can do better: no command line stuff, no file editing. Everything from the browser. Then after that, I think the next thing would be a build up of components. Something that the Joomla-like system can be built out of. In the end we want people to be able to make any kind of site they want, without touching code, command lines or anything else more then absolutely necessary. I have one last component to this that I think will be the killer app that makes this the system everyone will want, but I'm not going to mention that directly on the list (it will be a surprise hopefully :) ). So... Who else would be interested in being involved in this? I know Warren has expressed interest. I know a few others have expressed interest in seeing it happen. :) The more people the better, because there is a lot of work to be done. And the sooner the better. Thanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Count me in!!! I have been thinking about this for a while. My first
thoughts were to have Workspace scripting to create the initiail pieces. I was thinking that browser integration would be an add-on. On 11/5/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello all, > > I still have a ways to go on a few of my other projects, but I am close > enough that I thought it might be a good time to start finding out who > all would be interested in being involved in a project I want to do. > > Rails is getting a fair amount of exposure for being a frame work that > easily does the CRUD that most web sites need in some form. Joomla is a > system that could be built on top of that, but isn't, it's in PHP. > Joomla looks like the best system out there right now for setting up a > web 2.0 site from scratch. You can build the entire thing without doing > any coding. And lots of people (I mean *lots* of people) have written > components for the system, so it can do most anything. > > But I think this could all be done in seaside. And I think once it's in > seaside it could be more successful. It is one thing to write > something, but it is something completely different to maintain it. I > can't believe it is easy to maintain a system as big as Joomla in a > language like PHP. And any language that doesn't have continuations is > going to have to either simulate them manually, or do some other ugly > hack to deal with how HTTP works. So I think that if the system were > done in seaside it would be a great deal less code, and therefor easier > to maintain, extend, etc. > > So what I am looking for with this RFT (request for teamates :) ) email > is, who would be interested in working on a project with this as a > goal? The first thing that needs to be done is RoR (Rails) > functionality needs to be developed in Seaside. By that I don't mean > make the system exactly. I think we can do better: no command line > stuff, no file editing. Everything from the browser. Then after that, > I think the next thing would be a build up of components. Something > that the Joomla-like system can be built out of. In the end we want > people to be able to make any kind of site they want, without touching > code, command lines or anything else more then absolutely necessary. I > have one last component to this that I think will be the killer app that > makes this the system everyone will want, but I'm not going to mention > that directly on the list (it will be a surprise hopefully :) ). > > So... Who else would be interested in being involved in this? I know > Warren has expressed interest. I know a few others have expressed > interest in seeing it happen. :) The more people the better, because > there is a lot of work to be done. And the sooner the better. > > Thanks, > Jason > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > -- Jason Rogers "Where there is no vision, the people perish..." Proverbs 29:18 _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Exactly today we've sended a mail to web2.0-smalltalk list to
proposing aproximately the same, but using the tools that Diego GD is developing on top of Comet (http://smalltalk.consultar.com/wiki/doku.php). Sorry because both (the pages and the list) are in Spanish, but we can join efforts? Cheers. gsa. 2006/11/8, Jason Rogers <[hidden email]>: > Count me in!!! I have been thinking about this for a while. My first > thoughts were to have Workspace scripting to create the initiail > pieces. I was thinking that browser integration would be an add-on. > > On 11/5/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I still have a ways to go on a few of my other projects, but I am close > > enough that I thought it might be a good time to start finding out who > > all would be interested in being involved in a project I want to do. > > > > Rails is getting a fair amount of exposure for being a frame work that > > easily does the CRUD that most web sites need in some form. Joomla is a > > system that could be built on top of that, but isn't, it's in PHP. > > Joomla looks like the best system out there right now for setting up a > > web 2.0 site from scratch. You can build the entire thing without doing > > any coding. And lots of people (I mean *lots* of people) have written > > components for the system, so it can do most anything. > > > > But I think this could all be done in seaside. And I think once it's in > > seaside it could be more successful. It is one thing to write > > something, but it is something completely different to maintain it. I > > can't believe it is easy to maintain a system as big as Joomla in a > > language like PHP. And any language that doesn't have continuations is > > going to have to either simulate them manually, or do some other ugly > > hack to deal with how HTTP works. So I think that if the system were > > done in seaside it would be a great deal less code, and therefor easier > > to maintain, extend, etc. > > > > So what I am looking for with this RFT (request for teamates :) ) email > > is, who would be interested in working on a project with this as a > > goal? The first thing that needs to be done is RoR (Rails) > > functionality needs to be developed in Seaside. By that I don't mean > > make the system exactly. I think we can do better: no command line > > stuff, no file editing. Everything from the browser. Then after that, > > I think the next thing would be a build up of components. Something > > that the Joomla-like system can be built out of. In the end we want > > people to be able to make any kind of site they want, without touching > > code, command lines or anything else more then absolutely necessary. I > > have one last component to this that I think will be the killer app that > > makes this the system everyone will want, but I'm not going to mention > > that directly on the list (it will be a surprise hopefully :) ). > > > > So... Who else would be interested in being involved in this? I know > > Warren has expressed interest. I know a few others have expressed > > interest in seeing it happen. :) The more people the better, because > > there is a lot of work to be done. And the sooner the better. > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > > Seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > > -- > Jason Rogers > > "Where there is no vision, the people perish..." > Proverbs 29:18 > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Ummm. I don't see the Web 2.0 in Joomla.
I don't see how Joomla makes it easier to integrate/digest content from other web sites (XML & API calls, etc.). I don't see how Joomla becomes an application generation platform (like Rails). Wouldn't your effort duplicate what Pier & Margarete do? Avi is moving away from continuations toward persistence contained in the AJAX client layer. Check his blog. http://smallthought.com/avi/?p=14 Same as what Gilad Bracha said. On 11/8/06,
Germán Arduino <[hidden email]> wrote: Exactly today we've sended a mail to web2.0-smalltalk list to _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
http://www.yourminis.com/
and Google Gadgets Look close to Web 2.0 from a mash-up point of view. _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Johnson-3
Jason,
I would personally like to see something Morphic like for the web. It would be super cool if we could define the interface and some behaviors via direct manipulation and then fill in the blanks with some code. Another idea: Most CRUD frameworks are heavily biased on relational models. It would be nice if there was a CRUD framework that took a more Object orientated tree biased approach. Direct manipulation development is something that has only barely been explored with desktop applications and has seen almost no experimentation/implementation on the web front. Thanks Will _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
On 11/8/06, William Harford <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Jason, > > I would personally like to see something Morphic like for the web. > > It would be super cool if we could define the interface and some > behaviors via direct manipulation and then fill in the blanks with > some code. > > Another idea: Most CRUD frameworks are heavily biased on relational > models. It would be nice if there was a CRUD framework that took a > more Object orientated tree biased approach. > > Direct manipulation development is something that has only barely > been explored with desktop applications and has seen almost no > experimentation/implementation on the web front. > > Thanks > Will Regarding the relational database approach: if you look at Rails you will notice that the RDBMS is almost completely obscured out of the application, leaving you to deal with objects only. The fact that an RDBMS is on the backend probably has more to do with quick and easy adoption (most folks are familiar with the paradigm) than to the necessity of RDBMS over ODBMS. -- Jason Rogers (the other Jason) "Where there is no vision, the people perish..." Proverbs 29:18 _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by garduino
Wonderful. Where is this web2.0-smalltalk list? Is it in spanish as
well? But sure, I would love to see what you all are doing and see if it is a fit. Even if it isn't I bet we can share a great deal of work. Thanks for your email, Jason Germán Arduino wrote: > Exactly today we've sended a mail to web2.0-smalltalk list to > proposing aproximately the same, but using the tools that Diego GD is > developing on top of Comet > (http://smalltalk.consultar.com/wiki/doku.php). > > Sorry because both (the pages and the list) are in Spanish, but we can > join efforts? > > Cheers. > gsa. > > 2006/11/8, Jason Rogers <[hidden email]>: >> Count me in!!! I have been thinking about this for a while. My first >> thoughts were to have Workspace scripting to create the initiail >> pieces. I was thinking that browser integration would be an add-on. >> >> On 11/5/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > Hello all, >> > >> > I still have a ways to go on a few of my other projects, but I am >> close >> > enough that I thought it might be a good time to start finding out who >> > all would be interested in being involved in a project I want to do. >> > >> > Rails is getting a fair amount of exposure for being a frame work that >> > easily does the CRUD that most web sites need in some form. Joomla >> is a >> > system that could be built on top of that, but isn't, it's in PHP. >> > Joomla looks like the best system out there right now for setting up a >> > web 2.0 site from scratch. You can build the entire thing without >> doing >> > any coding. And lots of people (I mean *lots* of people) have written >> > components for the system, so it can do most anything. >> > >> > But I think this could all be done in seaside. And I think once >> it's in >> > seaside it could be more successful. It is one thing to write >> > something, but it is something completely different to maintain it. I >> > can't believe it is easy to maintain a system as big as Joomla in a >> > language like PHP. And any language that doesn't have >> continuations is >> > going to have to either simulate them manually, or do some other ugly >> > hack to deal with how HTTP works. So I think that if the system were >> > done in seaside it would be a great deal less code, and therefor >> easier >> > to maintain, extend, etc. >> > >> > So what I am looking for with this RFT (request for teamates :) ) >> > is, who would be interested in working on a project with this as a >> > goal? The first thing that needs to be done is RoR (Rails) >> > functionality needs to be developed in Seaside. By that I don't mean >> > make the system exactly. I think we can do better: no command line >> > stuff, no file editing. Everything from the browser. Then after >> that, >> > I think the next thing would be a build up of components. Something >> > that the Joomla-like system can be built out of. In the end we want >> > people to be able to make any kind of site they want, without touching >> > code, command lines or anything else more then absolutely >> necessary. I >> > have one last component to this that I think will be the killer app >> that >> > makes this the system everyone will want, but I'm not going to mention >> > that directly on the list (it will be a surprise hopefully :) ). >> > >> > So... Who else would be interested in being involved in this? I know >> > Warren has expressed interest. I know a few others have expressed >> > interest in seeing it happen. :) The more people the better, because >> > there is a lot of work to be done. And the sooner the better. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Jason >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Seaside mailing list >> > [hidden email] >> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> > >> >> >> -- >> Jason Rogers >> >> "Where there is no vision, the people perish..." >> Proverbs 29:18 >> _______________________________________________ >> Seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Darius Clarke
Darius Clarke wrote:
> Ummm. I don't see the Web 2.0 in Joomla. Joomla, per se, isn't my web 2.0 goal. But right now smalltalk is almost no where in this field. It has seaside as, in my oppinion, the best base out there. But it is a base. To do anything with it your going to be writing code. This is fine for coders, but most of the internet are not coders, and therefor that part (the biggest part) of the audience is cut off. I know Joomla isn't the end all and be all, but it puts smalltalk in the game with a system that anyone can use. And my goal is to build a really nice frame work that will let us build anything. Keep in mind Joomla is just a web application. My goal here is to build a flexable, extendible, easy to use web frame work, and one application to, well market it. :) > > I don't see how Joomla makes it easier to integrate/digest content > from other web sites (XML & API calls, etc.). Are you sure you know what Joomla is? It is a web application that lets one import components written by other people to impliment new functionality. If many people care about this feature, then there is a component for it. If there isn't a component then it must not be that important to enough people. > I don't see how Joomla becomes an application generation platform > (like Rails). See above. > Wouldn't your effort duplicate what Pier & Margarete do? My effort would be much much more then Pier. Pier is a minimal CMS. But the fact is, I intend to use Magritte and probably Pier (at least at first). I expected to use Magritte as our "RoR Scaffold" level. > Avi is moving away from continuations toward persistence contained in > the AJAX client layer. > Check his blog. http://smallthought.com/avi/?p=14 > Same as what Gilad Bracha > <http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/gbracha?entry=will_continuations_continue> > said. > I'm aware Avi wants to move away from continuations. But he wants to do that just to be compatible with other smalltalks. That doesn't have much to do with what I'm doing. If future versions of seaside change in a way that breaks us we will just stay with this branch. Just because he makes a new one doesn't mean we can't still use and develop this one. Compatibility with all smalltalks is not a concern of mine at the moment. Thanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Johnson-3
Hi Jason,
You can see the web2.0smalltalk stuff in - http://smalltalk.consultar.com/wiki/doku.php - http://groups.google.es/group/web20-smalltalk Pablo.- On 11/9/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Wonderful. Where is this web2.0-smalltalk list? Is it in spanish as > well? But sure, I would love to see what you all are doing and see if > it is a fit. Even if it isn't I bet we can share a great deal of work. > > Thanks for your email, > Jason > > Germán Arduino wrote: > > Exactly today we've sended a mail to web2.0-smalltalk list to > > proposing aproximately the same, but using the tools that Diego GD is > > developing on top of Comet > > (http://smalltalk.consultar.com/wiki/doku.php). > > > > Sorry because both (the pages and the list) are in Spanish, but we can > > join efforts? > > > > Cheers. > > gsa. > > > > 2006/11/8, Jason Rogers <[hidden email]>: > >> Count me in!!! I have been thinking about this for a while. My first > >> thoughts were to have Workspace scripting to create the initiail > >> pieces. I was thinking that browser integration would be an add-on. > >> > >> On 11/5/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > Hello all, > >> > > >> > I still have a ways to go on a few of my other projects, but I am > >> close > >> > enough that I thought it might be a good time to start finding out who > >> > all would be interested in being involved in a project I want to do. > >> > > >> > Rails is getting a fair amount of exposure for being a frame work that > >> > easily does the CRUD that most web sites need in some form. Joomla > >> is a > >> > system that could be built on top of that, but isn't, it's in PHP. > >> > Joomla looks like the best system out there right now for setting up a > >> > web 2.0 site from scratch. You can build the entire thing without > >> doing > >> > any coding. And lots of people (I mean *lots* of people) have written > >> > components for the system, so it can do most anything. > >> > > >> > But I think this could all be done in seaside. And I think once > >> it's in > >> > seaside it could be more successful. It is one thing to write > >> > something, but it is something completely different to maintain it. I > >> > can't believe it is easy to maintain a system as big as Joomla in a > >> > language like PHP. And any language that doesn't have > >> continuations is > >> > going to have to either simulate them manually, or do some other ugly > >> > hack to deal with how HTTP works. So I think that if the system were > >> > done in seaside it would be a great deal less code, and therefor > >> easier > >> > to maintain, extend, etc. > >> > > >> > So what I am looking for with this RFT (request for teamates :) ) > >> > is, who would be interested in working on a project with this as a > >> > goal? The first thing that needs to be done is RoR (Rails) > >> > functionality needs to be developed in Seaside. By that I don't mean > >> > make the system exactly. I think we can do better: no command line > >> > stuff, no file editing. Everything from the browser. Then after > >> that, > >> > I think the next thing would be a build up of components. Something > >> > that the Joomla-like system can be built out of. In the end we want > >> > people to be able to make any kind of site they want, without touching > >> > code, command lines or anything else more then absolutely > >> necessary. I > >> > have one last component to this that I think will be the killer app > >> that > >> > makes this the system everyone will want, but I'm not going to mention > >> > that directly on the list (it will be a surprise hopefully :) ). > >> > > >> > So... Who else would be interested in being involved in this? I know > >> > Warren has expressed interest. I know a few others have expressed > >> > interest in seeing it happen. :) The more people the better, because > >> > there is a lot of work to be done. And the sooner the better. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Jason > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Seaside mailing list > >> > [hidden email] > >> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jason Rogers > >> > >> "Where there is no vision, the people perish..." > >> Proverbs 29:18 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Seaside mailing list > >> [hidden email] > >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Johnson-3
>
> Are you sure you know what Joomla is? It is a web > application that lets one import components written by other > people to impliment new functionality. If many people care > about this feature, then there is a component for it. If > there isn't a component then it must not be that important to > enough people. Sounds like you're looking for Pier (http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/smalltalk/pier). Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Rogers-4
Jason Rogers wrote:
> Regarding the relational database approach: if you look at Rails you > will notice that the RDBMS is almost completely obscured out of the > application, leaving you to deal with objects only. The fact that an > RDBMS is on the backend probably has more to do with quick and easy > adoption (most folks are familiar with the paradigm) than to the > necessity of RDBMS over ODBMS. > Well ODBMS is mostly (if not completely) hierarchical, no? I mean like LDAP. If that is the case then those two strategies are very different. There are things that are simple to model in a hierarchical database that are hard, if even possible, in a relational database. And vice versa. _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by William Harford
William Harford wrote:
> Jason, > > I would personally like to see something Morphic like for the web. > > It would be super cool if we could define the interface and some > behaviors via direct manipulation and then fill in the blanks with > some code. > I'm not sure what you mean with this part, but we can discuss it. > Another idea: Most CRUD frameworks are heavily biased on relational > models. It would be nice if there was a CRUD framework that took a > more Object orientated tree biased approach. > Well, what I wanted to do was make a "RoR Scaffold" type layer, probably from Magritte, to handle data interaction. I want the actual data back end to be transparent to users of this Magritte-db layer. It doesn't matter if the data is stored in ODBMS, RDBMS, a flat text file, Excel files, some code component, etc. etc. But as far as how it behaves, I'm not sure what you mean about the OO tree biased. Do you mean hierarchical? My data tends to be relational (or my mind arranges it this way at least), and from what I have seen I think most groups out there are the same. So I would want a low cost of entry for relational folks. But we can talk about this. What you mean, how would it work, how does it make life easier for users, what are the costs when we're talking to an existing relational back end, etc. > Direct manipulation development is something that has only barely been > explored with desktop applications and has seen almost no > experimentation/implementation on the web front. > I'm interested in hearing more about this. I had a plan for how the view part would be done, maybe it will fit well with what your talking about. > Thanks > Will > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pablo Iaria
Hrm. :) I had planned to learn spanish at some point, but I need to get
better at german first. :) Pablo Iaria wrote: > Hi Jason, > > You can see the web2.0smalltalk stuff in > > - http://smalltalk.consultar.com/wiki/doku.php > - http://groups.google.es/group/web20-smalltalk > > Pablo.- > > > On 11/9/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Wonderful. Where is this web2.0-smalltalk list? Is it in spanish as >> well? But sure, I would love to see what you all are doing and see if >> it is a fit. Even if it isn't I bet we can share a great deal of work. >> >> Thanks for your email, >> Jason >> >> Germán Arduino wrote: >> > Exactly today we've sended a mail to web2.0-smalltalk list to >> > proposing aproximately the same, but using the tools that Diego GD is >> > developing on top of Comet >> > (http://smalltalk.consultar.com/wiki/doku.php). >> > >> > Sorry because both (the pages and the list) are in Spanish, but we can >> > join efforts? >> > >> > Cheers. >> > gsa. >> > >> > 2006/11/8, Jason Rogers <[hidden email]>: >> >> Count me in!!! I have been thinking about this for a while. My first >> >> thoughts were to have Workspace scripting to create the initiail >> >> pieces. I was thinking that browser integration would be an add-on. >> >> >> >> On 11/5/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > Hello all, >> >> > >> >> > I still have a ways to go on a few of my other projects, but I am >> >> close >> >> > enough that I thought it might be a good time to start finding >> out who >> >> > all would be interested in being involved in a project I want to >> do. >> >> > >> >> > Rails is getting a fair amount of exposure for being a frame >> work that >> >> > easily does the CRUD that most web sites need in some form. Joomla >> >> is a >> >> > system that could be built on top of that, but isn't, it's in PHP. >> >> > Joomla looks like the best system out there right now for >> setting up a >> >> > web 2.0 site from scratch. You can build the entire thing without >> >> doing >> >> > any coding. And lots of people (I mean *lots* of people) have >> written >> >> > components for the system, so it can do most anything. >> >> > >> >> > But I think this could all be done in seaside. And I think once >> >> it's in >> >> > seaside it could be more successful. It is one thing to write >> >> > something, but it is something completely different to maintain >> it. I >> >> > can't believe it is easy to maintain a system as big as Joomla in a >> >> > language like PHP. And any language that doesn't have >> >> continuations is >> >> > going to have to either simulate them manually, or do some other >> ugly >> >> > hack to deal with how HTTP works. So I think that if the system >> were >> >> > done in seaside it would be a great deal less code, and therefor >> >> easier >> >> > to maintain, extend, etc. >> >> > >> >> > So what I am looking for with this RFT (request for teamates :) ) >> >> > is, who would be interested in working on a project with this as a >> >> > goal? The first thing that needs to be done is RoR (Rails) >> >> > functionality needs to be developed in Seaside. By that I don't >> mean >> >> > make the system exactly. I think we can do better: no command line >> >> > stuff, no file editing. Everything from the browser. Then after >> >> that, >> >> > I think the next thing would be a build up of components. >> Something >> >> > that the Joomla-like system can be built out of. In the end we >> want >> >> > people to be able to make any kind of site they want, without >> touching >> >> > code, command lines or anything else more then absolutely >> >> necessary. I >> >> > have one last component to this that I think will be the killer app >> >> that >> >> > makes this the system everyone will want, but I'm not going to >> mention >> >> > that directly on the list (it will be a surprise hopefully :) ). >> >> > >> >> > So... Who else would be interested in being involved in this? I >> know >> >> > Warren has expressed interest. I know a few others have expressed >> >> > interest in seeing it happen. :) The more people the better, >> because >> >> > there is a lot of work to be done. And the sooner the better. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Jason >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Seaside mailing list >> >> > [hidden email] >> >> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jason Rogers >> >> >> >> "Where there is no vision, the people perish..." >> >> Proverbs 29:18 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Seaside mailing list >> >> [hidden email] >> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Seaside mailing list >> > [hidden email] >> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Johnson-3
On Nov 9, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Jason Johnson wrote: >> >> It would be super cool if we could define the interface and some >> behaviors via direct manipulation and then fill in the blanks with >> some code. >> > I'm not sure what you mean with this part, but we can discuss it. I mean you build/change/extend the application in the application via dragging, clicking, grabbing halos, etc. See the below link for an example. <a href="http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~black/CS420/Tutorial/Squeak%20Worksheet%">http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~black/CS420/Tutorial/Squeak%20Worksheet% 201B.html > > But as far as how it behaves, I'm not sure what you mean about the > OO tree biased. Do you mean hierarchical? My data tends to be > relational (or my mind arranges it this way at least), and from > what I have seen I think most groups out there are the same. So I > would want a low cost of entry for relational folks. But we can > talk about this. What you mean, how would it work, how does it > make life easier for users, what are the costs when we're talking > to an existing relational back end, etc. Yes I mean hierarchical. There are ways to store hierarchical data in relational database. I created a project called REServe that does just that ( http://squeaksource.com/REServe.html ) but you sacrifice some of the advantages of both models by doing so. It's a trade off. It makes life easier for users because it's one less thing to think about. If you are developing a Smalltalk application it is inherently hierarchical. If you want to persist objects in a relational database some tradeoffs will have to be made and you loose some of the power that Smalltalk gives you. For example polymorphism ( REServe works around this problem by having a lookup table and unique IDs for every row in the database regardless of table) . >> Direct manipulation development is something that has only barely >> been explored with desktop applications and has seen almost no >> experimentation/implementation on the web front. >> > I'm interested in hearing more about this. I The idea is that you limit if not completely eliminate the abstraction between developing the application and using it. MS Access sort of does this although I don't think it's the best example. I say think way outside the box on this. You stand a better chance of the project getting attention by doing something radical :-) Thanks Will _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Johnson-3
On 11/9/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Jason Rogers wrote: > > Regarding the relational database approach: if you look at Rails you > > will notice that the RDBMS is almost completely obscured out of the > > application, leaving you to deal with objects only. The fact that an > > RDBMS is on the backend probably has more to do with quick and easy > > adoption (most folks are familiar with the paradigm) than to the > > necessity of RDBMS over ODBMS. > > > > > Well ODBMS is mostly (if not completely) hierarchical, no? I mean like > LDAP. If that is the case then those two strategies are very > different. There are things that are simple to model in a hierarchical > database that are hard, if even possible, in a relational database. And > vice versa. I didn't mean to imply that the strategies weren't different. I was speaking to the decision making process for using an RDBMS. Rails could have be done with an ODBMS, but then adoption would have severely suffered because: [1] most folks aren't used to it [2] it's not as easy to port an existing application [3] most folks don't have access to an ODBMS as readily as an RDBMS (MySQL, SqlLite, PostGres, etc.) [4] other reasons. -- Jason Rogers "Where there is no vision, the people perish..." Proverbs 29:18 _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Jason Rogers wrote:
> On 11/9/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Well ODBMS is mostly (if not completely) hierarchical, no? I mean like >> LDAP. If that is the case then those two strategies are very >> different. There are things that are simple to model in a hierarchical >> database that are hard, if even possible, in a relational database. And >> vice versa. > > I didn't mean to imply that the strategies weren't different. I was > speaking to the decision making process for using an RDBMS. Rails > could have be done with an ODBMS, but then adoption would have > severely suffered because: > > [1] most folks aren't used to it > [2] it's not as easy to port an existing application > [3] most folks don't have access to an ODBMS as readily as an > RDBMS (MySQL, SqlLite, PostGres, etc.) > [4] other reasons. > Ok, well I honestly didn't know for sure. My team at my old company had evaluated ODMS's but I'm a little foggy on the details. But I agree, unless there is some big payback then RDBMS seems much more well known and likely to be at the customer site already. _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by William Harford
William Harford wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Jason Johnson wrote: > > I mean you build/change/extend the application in the application via > dragging, clicking, grabbing halos, etc. Yes, we are in line on this point. > Yes I mean hierarchical. There are ways to store hierarchical data in > relational database. I created a project called REServe that does just > that ( http://squeaksource.com/REServe.html ) but you sacrifice some > of the advantages of both models by doing so. It's a trade off. > > It makes life easier for users because it's one less thing to think > about. If you are developing a Smalltalk application it is inherently > hierarchical. If you want to persist objects in a relational database > some tradeoffs will have to be made and you loose some of the power > that Smalltalk gives you. For example polymorphism ( REServe works > around this problem by having a lookup table and unique IDs for every > row in the database regardless of table) . for a database are going to be data that isn't modeled in smalltalk. I guess the classic example would be HR information about employees. You have a table for the person with their address, date of birth, position, department, etc. You have a table of possible positions, possible departments, but the point is, this data looks very relational to me. I wouldn't want to lose any of the power that relational gives me unless I got something really good in return. Maybe you could provide a real world type case where this makes life a lot easier for the user? And remember my criteria for a good web framework is the further you can go without writing code the better the frame work. > The idea is that you limit if not completely eliminate the abstraction > between developing the application and using it. MS Access sort of > does this although I don't think it's the best example. > > I say think way outside the box on this. > You stand a better chance of the project getting attention by doing > something radical :-) Oh, I intend for us to stick out. :) But I'm a little confused on this point still. I kind of saw the pinnacle of GUI programming as MVP, which is an abstraction. Are you saying the way to go is to abandon the abstractions and put that kind of knowledge back with the data, etc.? As far as I know MS Access, VB, Borland and all those guys try to do a kind of MVC but they jam the M and the VC so closely together that your data ends up hopelessly bound to display. Which might be good if you write a little tiny app, but the more complicated your data gets the more abstractions help. But maybe what you're saying is so radical I havn't gotten it yet. :) And I hope I am not coming off as being critical of you or anyone else's ideas. I am glad to see ideas expressed so we can, hopefully, end up with a really advanced system. But I just have to keep an eye out for the common case and the common user. Nothing is worse then a big fancy feature that no one needed. So I will have to hold up any ideas any of us come up with to this standard. I haven't decided any ideas I have seen so far fit in this group, but there are a few things I want to understand better. _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Jason Johnson wrote: > William Harford wrote: > > Maybe you could provide a real world type case where this makes > life a lot easier for the user? And remember my criteria for a > good web framework is the further you can go without writing code > the better the frame work. > Imagine you have users in your application. You application provides a login system and has it's own internal list of users. Say you have a client that comes along and wants to log into your application as well but they want to use there list of users and passwords. In a relational system this is a major problem because your user id is most likely stored all over the place and your application assumes that the users all are of the same type (lets say are all stored in a user table with a unique id to that table). In an OODB this is no big deal you just store the reference to the new user object just like you store the existing user object. I am not sure the above is clear but think of it this way. Relational databases are statically typed and tend to be inflexible. Smalltak is not and is extremely flexible. By tying your framework a Relational database you loose some of the flexibility of Smalltalk. <plug type="shameless"> If you do decide to use a relational database may I sugest that you abstract the relational part as much as possible by using a library like REServe ( http://squeaksource.com/REServe.html ) . It handles most of the SQL/Relational nastiness for you. It also abstracts the relational nature of SQL databases enough that it leaves open the door for in image storage as well as some object oriented database options. </plug> > Oh, I intend for us to stick out. :) But I'm a little confused on > this point still. I kind of saw the pinnacle of GUI programming as > MVP, which is an abstraction. Are you saying the way to go is to > abandon the abstractions and put that kind of knowledge back with > the data, etc.? Sort of yea. You could still represent object in different ways but have a defining view. That is a view that not only allows you to create the object but is also useful in viewing/editing/add objects as well. I see it as the main way of interacting with an item. You might want to play with Self a little http://research.sun.com/ self/language.html . Or try playing with eToys. I personly don't see any problem with object being represented visually and that visual representation being that main point of interaction. You also might want to check out the Alternate Reality Kit http:// www.open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8050 > As far as I know MS Access, VB, Borland and all those guys try to > do a kind of MVC but they jam the M and the VC so closely together > that your data ends up hopelessly bound to display. Which might be > good if you write a little tiny app, but the more complicated your > data gets the more abstractions help. If you make it to complicated to build the tiny app no one will even get that far. If I want to keep track of contacts I don't want to have to write a Model then do a view than make a controller to keep it all together. I want to drag some fields with labels on the screen and type in the values. The challenge will then be to take this tiny app that someone has created by dragging objects around and make it more useful in an ever changing environment. > > And I hope I am not coming off as being critical of you or anyone > else's ideas. Lets hope that no one is that sensitive. > I am glad to see ideas expressed so we can, hopefully, end up with > a really advanced system. But I just have to keep an eye out for > the common case and the common user. I guess we have to define the "common user". I would like to see development expanded to non developers. In your face MVC type abstractions are way to complicated to non-developers. They want WYSIWYG. To them a value is the thing they see on the screen not some distantly abstracted value thats stored as a series of bits. Lets face it most business applications are not intellectually complicated, only building them is. Thanks Will > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Seems like their are two main areas here:
- how to manipulate/interact with the different components and the other: - how to keep track of that state and associated data on the back end. > I guess we have to define the "common user". I would > like to see development expanded to non developers. > In your face MVC type > abstractions are way to complicated to > non-developers. They want WYSIWYG. If I want to move my couch around, I would prefer not to have to leave my house, go to some office, enter a specification etc, and then go back to my house to see if I like the new position of my couch - I just want to grab it and move it. Same with other rooms, I want to go there (drill down to that component), interact with it until I am happy with what it looks like and then leave. That doesn't mean the model is flat - just that the UI allows that kind of interaction. > Relational databases are statically typed and tend > to be inflexible. Smalltak is not and is extremely > flexible. By tying your framework a > Relational database you loose some of the > flexibility of Smalltalk. Depending on how the application is used, it seems like you could have sort of a hybrid model. That is, a development model using in odb that would map to a relational db for a 'published' version. By adding some smarts to your persistent objects, it is not that difficult (well, it wasn't the time that I tried it) to have them build a relational representation of themselves. > Lets face it most business applications are not > intellectually > complicated, only building them is. Until you get enough developers working on them - then they get really complicated :-) -Chuck Kasmire ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
«
Return to Seaside General
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |