Talk:Web framework

Rewrite required?

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)? --218.108.53.226 (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction
History
Architectures
1. MVC
Features
1. Database access and mapping
2. Templating
Implementation
1. Languages
2. OS
References/See Also/External Links/etc.

-- V. berus 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Software framework taxonomy

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)[reply]

Languages

I think the languages section should address the notable features of each language and how they offer advantages (or disadvantages) to a framework.

As it stands, I think we risk straying into duplicating the List of web application frameworks and we certainly shouldn’t be including frameworks here without an article, as discussion on the list page established the practice of only recording frameworks with articles (so, in theory at least, notable ones).

I will drop the external references now. V. berus 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASP.NET

Is ASP.NET really a web framework like Ruby on Rails or Django? As Microsoft states - ASP.NET is only a technology so i think it's not a framework in the classical way. Moreover it's so different compared to others. DotNetNuke is a framework but it's built with ASP.NET just like Ruby on Rails is built with Ruby - but that doesn't make Ruby a framework, so neither it does for ASP.NET. What do you think?

--Florian Sening 11:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. DotNetNuke, Django, RoR -- frameworks. ASP.NET, Python, Ruby -- languages, technologies, libraries, whatever ... but not "frameworks". Josephgrossberg 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i will change it then.

--Florian Sening 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scaffolding

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Chillenious (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]