[aida] Web framework or Web Application Server?
s at xss.de
Wed Aug 20 14:12:04 CEST 2008
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:17:25 -0500
Jimmie Houchin <j.squeak at cyberhaus.us> wrote:
> > But on the other side, RoR and Seaside are declared only as web
> > frameworks and as we like to be on pair, we also use only "Web
> > framework" for Aida when appropriate.
> Seaside can claim to be a framework if they wish. But it is just as
> dependent on Komanche's as AIDA is on Swazoo.
In fact, Seaside does not depend on a specifice web server as you can
see in the VisualWorks environment, where you can choose between three
different web server backends, Swazoo one of them.
> > Also if you see title of our website on Google, you'll see a long
> > "AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Framework and Application Server". That's
> > because people search sometimes as web framework, sometimes as web
> > application, sometimes as web application server etc.
> In the end, to me, AIDAweb is for building and serving web applications.
> Yes, it does contain a framework, but it is far more tightly coupled to
> its components and parts than most.
... which might not be perceived as positive, as it effectively
prevents you from switching out one of the components if so required.
So de-emphasizing the distinction between the framework and the
actual server might be a good thing. You could/should promote it
as integrated solution to the problem of building and serving web
> Is a framework?
> Has a framework?
> Is an application server?
> Has an application server?
> Nothing will be perfect.
> But I vote for Web Application Server and a quality definition as to
> what that means for AIDAweb.
Remembering that all this is connected to a wikipedia entry, you might
want to choose a definition that fits nicely with the one given on
wikipedia for the respective terms.
More information about the Aida