Forgive me if the following is wrong, but isn't it possible to have
something like an edit context as in WebObjects that will not accept
a second request with the same edit context ID?
If one would keep track of requests to the server with a sequence id,
it would be possible to process any request with an already handled
id in a way that would ignore it and process it as a simple refresh
of the page?
I have a good friend in Germany who is now the mastermind behind
Project Wonder which is the extension framework for WebObjects.
Naturally,
he's a WebObjects guru and usually points out the advantages of it
compared with Tapestry. From what he tells me (and with the limited
ability of me to digest it) I think that they use redirect-after-post
only sporadic.
Andreas Pardeike
On 13 apr 2007, at 11.22, kranga wrote:
Reasons I can think of:
1) Log analysis: Your page hit statistics and other log based audit
and troubleshooting activity need to take this into account.
2) Extra unwanted delay and traffic in rendering pages.
Storing page state in the session in general is a bad idea. When
you have multiple browser windows connected to the same session,
you have complete chaos.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Moore"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Redirects
well at least one reason is that phone browsers ask the user to
confirm each and every client-side redirect
On 4/12/07, Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/12/07, Andreas Pardeike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is that clever design? I can think of several reasons why this
could be
> a bad idea. What's the reasoning behind this?
Redirects helps you keeping your url and page states cleans, i mean
helps you a lot.
Which use case do you think to address?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
