Florent Guillaume wrote:
David H  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I might disagree, keeping a stable URL is not, by itself,  
"user-defeating".  For example, user's do not like browser history 
clutter with subfolders and objects - all from the same application. 
www.myApp.com/updateChartOfAccounts. Because that would be "out of
context".  Sure you can respond with an error message.  But why should 
they see it in the first place?

They shouldn't, the application should be written in such a way that
this is a POST, and it won't appear in the history.
POST conceals parameters not paths from history. And I only described a WAY to handle the problem.
With a stable URL they just click www.myApp.com and they get the main 
page - every time.

That's what bookmarks are for. You're trying to force your ideas of
bookmarking and history management to the users.
I wish I could impose my ideas on users.   I respond to specs.  Yes, I will fight the good fight when a spec is silly. I've even turned down gigs because the client was stubborn and what they wanted would be a disaster. But URL "cloaking" is not silly to some clients and the pattern I described handles it nicely and has benefits well beyond maintaining a stable URL.
Note:  Sometimes I sense a "culture clash" between Advanced Zope developement guys, Web presentation guys and us lowly application developers that get the joy of accounting systems online.
The question remains - is there an elegant solution to this.

What you call "stable URL" everybody else calls "cloaking" or "jailing".
It *is* hostile to the user.

Im curious, how is it "hostile" to a user? 

If there are superior patterns (for Business Apps) Im the first that wants to see them and this is  a welcome discussion. :-)

Thanks very much Florent,


Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to