Well, I only use ActionLinks. :-) I know there is some debate on not using Action Links, but they seem pretty useful to me. Of course, the web applications I write tend to be non-bookmarkable, anyway -- user can't jump into the middle of the application as it is very stateful. I also didn't like the idea of having state encoded on the URL and also didn't like the idea of having to explicitly pull the parameters out of the IRequestCycle (seemed very PHPish/etc, and not very WebObjects-like).
Of course, those are just my opinions. Your goals/applications might have different needs. /dev/mrg > From: Joel Trunick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Tapestry users <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:07:34 -0500 > To: Tapestry users <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Tapestry, Cayenne and Squeezer > > So what do you do in the case of Direct links? > > Joel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Gentry (Yes, I'm a Contractor) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 8:13 AM > To: Tapestry users > Subject: Re: Tapestry, Cayenne and Squeezer > > Maybe I'm paranoid, but for any application of consequence (where money > or > personal information is involved), I don't like giving the user any > information they can mutate and send back to me and possibly gain access > to > information they shouldn't have access to. And any OS X user who has > OmniWeb can easily edit the source, change any hidden INPUTs, and then > redisplay the page and send it back to you. Of course, changing the > value > of the hidden INPUTs to something that is still meaningful could be > challenging, but we are talking about someone motivated to hack the > system > to gain inappropriate access. > > I'll keep my DataContext/DataObjects in the Visit where it is safe from > them. > > /dev/mrg > > >> From: Todd O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Tapestry users <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:49:35 -0400 >> To: Tapestry users <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Tapestry, Cayenne and Squeezer >> >> On Jul 8, 2005, at 8:38 AM, t.n.a. wrote: >> >>> Todd O'Bryan wrote: >>> >>> >>>> How did you handle passing CayenneDataObjects around the Tapestry >>>> application? The squeezer just lets you use them normally, handling >>>> serialization and deserialization behind the scenes. Before I > started >>>> using it, I had to pass around ObjectIds and such to prevent my data >>>> objects from thinking they were in different DataContexts and >>>> generally being a pain. >>>> >>> >>> I stored the DataContext as well as most of what I needed in the >>> Visit. >>> Each user has his own visit object, each visit contains individual >>> DataObjects and everything seems to work just fine. >>> What am I missing? >> >> I generally try to avoid putting things in the Visit and instead >> store them as parameters or hidden fields in the pages. It may simply >> be a misguided attempt to save memory that I'm never going to need, >> but enough people have touted the holy grail of statelessness that I >> guess I've bought the hype. >> >> Todd >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
