I took a look at Angular's page. Looks interesting and might be more concise, BUT I can do it all in web2py already. It's mostly a matter of sight design -- we all use some jQuery these days, anyway. Retrofitting an existing set of pages to reduce them to a 1-pager is exponentially harder than designing the site to be a 1-pager to begin with. Now that I have a much better idea of how to do it, I think web2py is perfectly acceptable. The only inconsistency that I see is with login/out/register/etc. auth administration, but it's pretty minor.
On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:15:06 PM UTC+8, Anthony wrote: > > If you want to build a single-page app, you might also consider options > like AngularJS <http://angularjs.org> (supported by Google) and > batman.js<http://batmanjs.org>(by Shopify). They move templating to the > client, so your server just > delivers the initial "page" (i.e., the whole app, including JS templates) > and then takes Ajax requests and returns JSON rather than HTML. > > Anthony > > On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:37:09 AM UTC-4, weheh wrote: >> >> P.P.S. As I was saying about compressing the site down to one page ... >> the real reason why I was having to do this contortion with redirect is >> because I HAVEN'T compressed the site down to one page. It's actually more >> like 2 or 3 pages. When I have a little more time, I will compress it down >> to 1 and then see how it changes things. >> >> @Jonathan -- yes the whole ajax business is headache inducing. Much like >> quantum physics. But after awhile, the old way of thinking (Newtonian >> viewpoint in the case of physics, or static pages in the case of web stuff) >> just seems so limited, and frankly, in the case of physics, insane. Said >> differently, just as Newtonian physics (classical mechanics) is a limiting >> case of quantum physics, static pages is a limiting case of ajax. >> >
