Hi OvermindDL1,
Thank you for you opinion.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:08 AM, OvermindDL1 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Maurice Gittens
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > /* snip */
>
> Quite frankly, coming from a user, WTimer should *only* be used with a
> session as it is the Javascript (meta-refresh?) interface, just as you
> would not use WText without a session (it is the <span> interface) or
> WTable, they are all client-side links.
Why should it *only* be used from a session? No, sust because you say so is
not a valid technical argument.
I challenge you to provide properly substantiated grounds for you opinion on
this matter if you can.
Please try to understand that if a WTimer requires a session to work it
should probably
be called a WSessionTimer or similar. Is that not OO design 101?
The point is that neither the interface nor the documentation of many these
classes state anything about
the requirement for a session. The dependency on a session happens to be an
artifact of the current
*implementation*.
So when, for example, one needs to serve JSON without a session and one
serves stuff including strings
from a resource bundle should it not be supported just because you do not
have
this need? Great! Thanks for your consideration.
If you want to work in the
> background, do not use Wt client interfaces. If you want a background
> timer, use it as your normally would, ASIO::timer or sleep or
> what-not.
>
>
It helps when people recognize that there are more use-cases than their own.
What I suggest takes nothing away from your use case _and_ adds new use
cases
for other folks. Why do you oppose this? Again just because you can is not a
valid
technical reason.
Supporting new use-cases without:
- removing existing functionality
- breaking existing code
- significantly adding/changing existing interfaces
- using significantly more resources
- causing significant regressions
is exactly what Wt needs.
Do you really think that use of Wt will grow more by reducing the number of
situations
in which it can be used?
Think again!
I have written enough well-used homegrown C++ application servers and I
personally do not
need Wt be improved to support more used cases.
But I use Wt simply because I like the idea of a open-source C++ Web
Application framework.
In fact I will probably just roll my own fast-cgi application server and
move on; because my code
is written so that it is easy to get rid of Wt.
But is it that hard to grasp that it is not good for the Wt user-base when a
more diverse set of
use-cases is not supported?
Whatever, I thrust the Emweb folks will be able to pick sense from nonsense.
Thank you for letting me state my opinion.
Kind regards,
Maurice
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> witty-interest mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
witty-interest mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
