Florent Guillaume wrote:
www.myApp.com/updateChartOfAccounts. Because that would be "out ofDavid 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.
POST conceals parameters not paths from history. And I only described a WAY to handle the problem.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.
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.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.
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.
Im curious, how is it "hostile" to a user?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.
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 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )