I have done a fair amount of REST+json connecting to client side applications written in javascript. and TurboJson makes that very easy. I've played with using the same json responses from a flex app, and I didn't have any problems.
I think it would be good to have something like TurboJson for AMF3, so that anybody who uses buffet templates can just render out native flash objects. It looks like somebody has been working on AMF support for Django, but the solution seems to be very Django specific. --Mark On 9/12/07, iain duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-12-09 at 11:28 -0400, Brandon Goldfedder wrote: > > All, > > So in a previous thread we discussed native support of Flex within > > TurboGears. I want to address another question. How best to use Flex > > with TurboGears OR should something else be used. > > > > Here's my experiences: > > > > We first developed a flex application with a 3rd party JSON support > > component and TurboGears as the web application server. It worked fine > > once we dealt with the JSON issues. > > > > I later developed a flex application using TGWebServices but quickly > > came to realize that the httpservice calls were working FAR better > > than the SOAP based ones both in speed as well as ease in parsing. > > Additionally, because I was passing very complex objects I found > > myself needing to create xml strings and pass then back and forth > > rather than the TGWebService Complex objects. This approach required > > no 3rd party flex apps and once the details were worked around was > > pretty clean. The biggest issue here was the caching which required me > > to do the extra parameter hack to avoid (my easy cherrypy expire > > response decorator didn't quite work using TGWebServices as it has in > > other TG apps I have done) > > > > I've been pleased with Flex (alternating between thrilled and > > disgusted depending what problem I discover) and other than a hack on > > cherrypy to handle fileupload issues the server side has been no > > problem whatsoever. I'm using Elixir to handle the db interactions and > > again, once through the learning issues, that is working great as > > well. > > > > I'm debating now whether raw TurboGears with just using http is the > > right way to go here, or even (gasp) if TG is overkill for a simple > > web application service that is not going to do any GUI work... > > I have been doing something similar for a backend to a wxPython app. My > two cents: > > If you haven't already got it, I'd highly recommend getting the O'Reilly > book "Restful Web Services". For myself, I have found using http alone > works fine ( as recommended in the book ) but that certainly there is > enough going on there to warrant using TG. You can still use templates > and widgets to build the xhtml representations of your data nicely and > the integration of all the components is still a major boon. It's easy > too to simply write a different controller class for different > representations and then you have the advantage of all the regular TG > views ( human html, json, the tg-admin shell ) for debugging. > > HTH > Iain > > > > > > > > -- Mark Ramm-Christensen email: mark at compoundthinking dot com blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
