If I may be so bold, this article would benefit from a total rewrite; in its current form the article provides little information and, I suspect, this contributes to the discussion on specific framework articles, for example Ruby on Rails, where people are seeking information on the facilities/technologies of these frameworks.
By bolstering the generic information provided here, we can remove some of the replication across the specific framework articles, allowing them to focus on the notable aspects of that framework.
How about a structure along the following lines (forgive the working titles, but you get the idea, I hope)? --[[Special:Contributions/126.96.36.199|218.10ojjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
- References/See Also/External Links/etc.
-- V. berus 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this would be a great idea, and would like to help out fill in areas. I was starting up Comparison of web application frameworks and I think it should closely follow the ideas on this page.
One additional feature I think we should draw attention to is Ajax. I think it's also important to compare/contrast web application frameworks with similar ideas such as Solution stacks as well as CMSes.
I don't see any objections do re-writing the article, so I think starting and posting the re-write sooner will get more casual editors to contribute sooner.
Ian Bailey 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support and suggestions, I have a rough draft of the rewrite that I'm working on, I'll try and get it to a reasonable start on then paste it in, so allowing others to take on sections. -- V. berus 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to organize the various types of software frameworks, and I would appreciate input from contributors to this article as well. See Talk:Software framework#Software framework taxonomy Ian Bailey 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC) k;lsdgsdfgnfkln —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Some frameworks will generate a basic, but fully-functional, application, once the developer specifies the structure of the data, or it is discovered through introspection. In some frameworks, this scaffolding supports the create, read, update and delete (CRUD) operations necessary to manipulate data.
I'm not sure why this is written under web template system. Imho scaffolding isn't some function tied to the template system. And scaffolding doesn't just happen out of nowhere. The first sentence implies that scaffolding automatically happens (wohoo - magic) after the model is designed. Then in some frameworks scaffolding creates CRUD sites for your models. So what does scaffolding do in the other frameworks? To summarize: I think scaffolding is merely a feature of the framework not one of the templating system. And it always generates CRUD pages if you're starting to scaffold. What do you think?
--Florian Sening 12:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think that scaffolding at least leverages the templating framework, because it normally uses some of the templating features when it gets invokes. However, the idea does not need to be tied to a specific templating framework, so I can see how it could be thought of as a separate feature in the framework. Feel free to re-write the notes on scaffolding. We should probably refer to the Scaffold (programming) article, while we are at it. Ian Bailey 22:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Push vs Pull should go
I've seen these terms - push and pull - used before in discussions, but not everyone agrees on what they mean. I certainly don't. With Velocity for instance, you need to 'push' something in the context before you can use it, but after that, the object and everything it references is available for whatever operation, which is more of a pull. In fact, Velocity tools are purely 'pull'. Also, Struts is being classified as a push framework, and Velocity as pull, but you can use Velocity as a view layer of Struts.
Whether a framework is 'component oriented' has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is push or pull, but rather with the ability to break up functionality on 'pages' into smaller, independent 'components'.
Finally, the reference that is used for the push vs pull explanation is a public forum; the opinions of a few random people of that site hardly justifies being referenced to here.
That article would be much better without the whole push vs pull thing.
So I think that the discussion is relevant and correct, but I agree that the treatment, in giving it's own section on this page, is incorrect. Instead this is information that would be best served living on the MVC page as a discussion of different techniques for implementing views or discussion of the interactions between Ms Vs and Cs.
Confused, confusing, and just plain wrong
There's soooo many other problems too. Take the part on Security, what does it even mean to say that "Some web application frameworks come with authentication and authorization frameworks"? In practice, they ALL do and to pick a nit, choosing to allow full access to everyone is still a choice on how to deal with the auth & auth question. Now, if we were to talk about how some of the major players handle it? e.g. "Django, and most other frameworks, use role-based authentication and authorization. XXX, on the other hand, uses ??? instead."
Why bother listing the OSes when you're really just trying to say "All major OSes". Heck, it's worse than that, Catalyst can run on just about any piece of hardware that's out there.
Why bother listing the languages? Again, the answer is "most programming languages". If you want a list of frameworks, then just go ahead and do that instead. Oh, and I'm just going to mention the holy war in passing ... why is Java first on the list when everything else is alphabetical? And, and, and, I'm not really looking for a war, I just don't think this is a balanced presentation.
I've been writing "web applications" since 1994. Sometimes I found myself scratching my head at the convoluted way this page reads. If I'm not understanding the article, what would any normal person make of it?
Given the other more urgent suggestions, this may be trivial, but I believe it should be addressed in the future. In the heading, "This article lacks historical information on the subject ...", there is a missing period before the "... Please ...", but I cannot access that boxed heading to add the missing period. [Perhaps I cannot access it because I am too lazy to log in.]