On 02/13/2010 01:19 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Friday 12 February 2010 00:50:30 Ian Clarke wrote: >> >> Firstly, all I've done is made a proposal, and defended that proposal, I'm >> not dictating anything to anyone. >> >> The reality however is that FProxy is a mess. We've basically implemented >> our own web framework, and it violates almost every rule of good web >> framework design. We've got HTML structures implemented in Java code, and >> no convenient support for AJAX, among other flaws. > > This was not explained in your prior email. And I disagree. HTML is supposed > to be used for structure, there is nothing wrong with structure in code. > Presentation should not be in the code, and neither should english strings, > but they are not (okay, 99% of the time they are not). Yes it would be > possible to express structure with a different language, say XML, but there > would be no benefit, the outcome would be exactly the same, and the way we do > it now we get compatibility with old/non-js/accessible browsers for free. We > then convert structure to presentation using CSS (which can do *almost* > anything, including drop-downs and menus), and we use Javascript for live > data updating and occasionally for update-in-place interactive stuff. You may > accuse this of being a 1999 model, but it's a perfectly good model.
I agree on this > > The web-pushing branch provides convenient support for AJAX, specifically for > live updating of on-screen elements. This has been implemented for many parts > of the node: > - The progress bar when loading a page. > - Individual progress graphics and an overall summary message when loading a > page with lots of inline images. > - The downloads page. > - The statistics page. > - The connections pages. > - The set of alerts shown on various pages. > - The status line shown on every page. > > Some of this is a little clumsy visually (sashee isn't a designer), but > accessing it from Java code is easy enough. Isnt all those AJAX stuff based upon javascript? What about those, who dont have or want to use javascript? >> >> But if you accept that FProxy has serious and fundamental flaws, then it >> makes perfect sense to replace it with a pre-existing open source web >> framework that has elegantly solved all of these problems. GWT is the best >> candidate for this I've found. > > I don't accept that, but I *do* support using GWT. GWT is a good means to > generate cross platform Javascript code. I disagree with both of you. GWT is a mess, when you want to compile it yourself without binary and precompiled inclusions. So until you can present me a clean way to create a GWT copy from source, i strongly vote against it, this would make packagers work *much* harder. In addition, also GWT creates javascript code, what about those users, who dont have or want to use javascript? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 316 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100213/a21ea118/attachment.pgp>
