On Friday April 26, 2002 04:43 pm, Kendall Clark wrote: > >>>>> "geoffrey" == Geoffrey Talvola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > geoffrey> Terrel Shumway wrote: > >> > I agree completely that the way an app server like Webware > >> > >> manages URI > >> > >> > space should make no assumptions about filesystems. That's, in > >> > my view, the major Webware wart. > >> > >> I hadn't thought of it that way. But yes, that is exactly right. > > geoffrey> I'm happy to see more flexibility in Webware's URI > geoffrey> handling as long as the current behavior remains the > geoffrey> default behavior out of the box. > > I suppose that's reasonable, if for least-surprise reasons, if no > other, though least-surprise has a limited shelf life, IMO. > > geoffrey> More flexible URI handling is a bonus for > geoffrey> content-management types of applications, but it doesn't > geoffrey> help at all for the type of application I'm developing > geoffrey> (and for many other apps too). > > I think it's almost entirely orthogonal to the *kind* of application > one is building; that is, I just don't see any positive reason to make > assumptions about filesystem entities in the code that resolves a URI > into some resource on the server that is responsible for that URI.
For the sake of keeping things simple. Having a simple URI-servlet mapping helps with ease of understanding for the developers building the web application. > > Amazon is a pretty good example; there's a rather complex Web app that > runs the site, and I can't ever remember seeing a ?query-string URL; > it appears to pass all arguments as hierarchical elements separated by > "/". If I'm writing forms with action=get, I'm going to get ?=style query-string parameters regardless of whether I'd prefer a different format. I may as well use that format in other places where I'm constructing the URI too -- why make my job more difficult by having to handle a different parameter format? > > That doesn't strike me as application *type*-specific at all. In some > cases, it's merely a matter of style, preference, and other > considerations (like those in the W3C's URI style recommendations). > Point taken, but I'll still prefer to keep things simple, and for me that means sticking with the way Webware works now. - Geoff _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
