I've just pushed a changeset (to the public Ur/Web repo) which adds a
[show] type class instance for [css_class]. The idea of using this
sends a chill down my spine, but the customer is always right. :)
This idea of absolutely maximizing the ease of distributing "standalone
apps" is a new one to me. I didn't expect it to be important to
people. I'm working now (with a few others from this list) on a
commercial consulting job, developing an application for a customer.
The application is fully self-contained within a Mercurial repository,
but not all parts of that repo are processed by Ur/Web. Instead, a
top-level README file gives 3 lines of Apache configuration that will
"mount" the static files and set up proxying to an urweb-produced
executable. This seems so close to 0 cost that it's not worth worrying
about improvements. I see clear advantages compared to generating CSS
styling in Ur/Web; for instance, the ability to edit CSS code with a
nice Emacs mode, rather than working within Ur/Web string literals.
For the last 10 years, I've been doing web programming only in
languages/frameworks that I've built myself, so I'm a bit out of touch
with the standard expectations in that field today. :) Do frameworks
today all come with tools for distributing dynamic and static content
together with "one click deployment," or are folks on this list
expecting more from Ur/Web because of its closer integration with CSS, etc.?
_______________________________________________
Ur mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
