On Aug 13, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Mark Wardle wrote: > Thank you both for these replies. > > I think I'm learning that just because I don't have budget constraints > (in terms of money) I do have time constraints and as such sometimes > things just have to be good enough, rather than perfect.
Time is a budgeting item too! :-) > > As such, deploying, integrating and managing multiple apps may be one > step too far! I'll try to stick to one app and move some more core > items into frameworks to simplify maintenance. > > Thanks, > > Mark > > -- > Dr. Mark Wardle > Specialist registrar, Neurology > (Sent from my mobile) > > > On 10 Aug 2010, at 04:47, Chuck Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Mark, >> >> On Aug 9, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Mark Wardle wrote: >>> >>> The time has come for me to sketch out the next version of my patient >>> record system. >>> >>> I have several frameworks and one application. The latter is a bit >>> gnarly (to use a technical term) and unwieldy and I think it would >>> make sense logically (and from a user interface point of view) to have >>> separate applications for different specific functionality. >> >> Why not partition the UI functionality into frameworks and then combine them >> in the (now probably mostly empty) application? >> >> >>> Is there a WebObjects-way of passing sessions between applications or >>> is it simply a case if using a manually created cookie with an >>> encrypted username and somehow safely providing a time-limited >>> credential? >> >> I once broke up an application into two for the same reason you are >> considering. I have regretted it ever since. It uses more memory on the >> server (more app instances) and you have the problem of different sessions >> on different applications. >> >> If you really want single sign on, look at something like Cosign, or WebAuth >> or Shibboleth. >> >> >>> I have enabled different sub-applications as part of the single main >>> app dynamically based on runtime data - and I'm definitely undecided >>> whether breaking it up is the right way forward. On the other hand, >>> factoring out the common stuff and creating a robust core framework >>> has a certain aesthetic quality to it. >> >> Based on your description, I'd refactor the common stuff into frameworks and >> keep the single point of access (application) for the users. >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >>> >>> All opinions gratefully received. >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Mark Wardle >>> Specialist registrar, Neurology >>> (Sent from my mobile) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>> Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) >>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >>> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net >>> >>> This email sent to [email protected] >> >> -- >> Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development >> >> Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall >> knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. >> http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
