Log in

No account? Create an account
Apache::MVC - Nick [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | gagravarr.org ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Apache::MVC [Feb. 10th, 2004|10:44 am]
As some of you may know, Simon Cozens has spent the last few weeks hacking away on a new project - Apache::MVC

I read all the blog posts, played with the demo sites, but failed to figure out just what it was for. Shiny, yes, but what did the damn thing do and why would you do it

Yesterday, for my sins, I was at a Microsoft talk entitled "Introduction to ASP Dot Net 2", which really should've been called "here are lots of cool things you can do with the new version of visual studio that'll go with ASP.NET 2. Most of them can only be used for knocking up demo sites, and will never scale in production, but hey, don't they look cool, and aren't they quick to do! Oh, and a few bits of what we're doing rely on some new features in ASP.NET 2". Since I'd really gone there to find out about the details of the new features, this was a little pesky, but I digress.

One of the demos they showed involved creating a data driven website. You dropped a data grid object onto the page, linked it into a data source. You played with a few layout things, enabled paging and sorting, and bingo. Click a little more, and you had an edit interface for your data too. There was a website, pulling and sorting your data, doing paging, all in a few clicks. If you ignored the minor admission that the sorting and paging were being done in code rather than the database, it was quite a neat little way to view the simple data relationships.

At this very moment, I figured out what Simon was trying to do with Apache::MVC.

It's the same thing that Microsoft think lots of people want to do for their data driven websites. Very quickly knock up pages to display data, relationships, edit it, customize the look etc. The pleasing thing - I think his method requires less "work" (more letters typed, but less time clicking and pissing around to achieve), is more general, and more customizable.

Still don't think I'll be using either of them....