On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:51 am, Clark C. Evans wrote: > model as a two parts (not 4: transaction, response, request, page)
*Conceptually* a response and a request *are* different things. Take cookies for example. They both have them, but a request contains the cookies that the UserAgent/Browser sent while the response is housing the cookies that *will* be sent. I think merging these would unnatural and confusing. Transaction is something that subclassers of Page hardly ever think about. You merely say self.request(), self.response() and self.session(). Also, the thread safety of servlets/pages makes them much easier to code. The fact that there are multiple instances is handled by the app server. I've felt relieved rather than burdened by this approach. > I don't understand Aaron's comment... see above. In particular, > I find Webware closer to Sun's Java Servlet model than Twisted. In it's basic approach (servlets, request, response, session) WebKit _is_ close to Java Servlets. But Java APIs go on and on and on. There was also some "cruft" from their web framework that I left out, although I forget the details by now. My _impression_ of Twisted is that it's trying to do "nearly everything". I think you're later comment about Twisted's documentation is more about having to embrace a lot to do a little. On the other hand, maybe Twisted gets benefits from trying to unify all these concepts. I prefer more independent frameworks. Webware's MiddleKit provides what I call "object model programming" but it neither requires nor depends on the application server (WebKit). You never have to crack the docs for one to learn and use the other. Webware itself doesn't make a big deal about remote method invocation because Pyro was already out there and XML-RPC was easy enough to slip into the app server. | server. We're already doing HTTP via Ian's earlier contrib. > Does that work? I tried it once or twice and gave up about a > year ago... In short "yes". I was using it a few months ago in development. But then my browser reloads would fail while the app server was restarting itself. So I switched back to Apache. > Chuck, I really love Webware; you've really made a beautyful product > that works flawlessly ... I'm just looking for a solution that > doesn't involve maintaining a separate FTP, SMTP and HTTP components. Thanks and good luck! This has certainly been an interesting thread. I think the Webware community will eventually provide these protocols out of interest (like they did with HTTP). Personally, I'm happy to continue with Postfix, Apache, etc. -Chuck ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
