[Zope3-dev] Portlets vs Pagelets

[Joachim Werner]

Shane Hathaway schrieb:
> On Tuesday 07 December 2004 06:44 am, Joachim Werner wrote:
> 
>>- For really advanced web-based UIs the framework should simulate a
>>long-running session/process, so I can do things like this as easily as
>>they can be done in, let's say, PyQt:
>>
>>    answer = MessageBox.question('Do you want to proceed?',
>>             'Yes', 'No')
>>    if answer == True:
>>     self.doSomething()

>>"MessageBox" would display a web page with the message and a "Yes" and
>>"No" button. As soon as the user has made his choice the result would be
>>returned to the main application process.

> Stackless Python (and good session tracking) is a great way to achieve that.  
> Stackless allows MessageBox.question() to store the call stack and finish the 
> request without returning.  In a later request, you can restore the former 
> stack and proceed along the original path.  Pretty cool stuff, even though it 
> breaks assumptions like "finally" clauses.

That's interesting.

Can Zope X3 be used with Stackless Python out of the box?

>>  - "widgets" on a web page would automatically get unique ids for their
>>    form actions and field names, so things don't get mixed up if there
>>    is more than one "applet" (portlet) on the page. The developer would
>>    be able to use non-globally-unique identifiers when he writes his
>>    application logic.

> The current HTML forms framework actually seems to be quite good at this; are 
> you talking about something more?

I must admit that I'll have to have a closer look at the existing stuff 
before I can judge it ;-)

>>What I am hinting at is that we'll need larger building blocks and hide
>>more of the implementation issues from the casual application
>>programmer. Let me compare this with Lego: We shouldn't require the
>>children to carve their own lego blocks from wood and decide on the size
>>and design of the connectors on an individual basis. They should get a
>>box with all kinds of blocks in all colors and start building things
>>from them ;-)

> I guess you're saying a component framework is pretty boring unless there are 
> components built for it. :-)

;-)