|
OriginalGriff wrote: That sounds like "seriously interesting article" material going on there! Are you going to write it up at some point?
Eventually -- there's a lot of bare bones examples out there on writing a web server, I think what I would want to demonstrate are the nuances of browser behavior and data interaction. Though, putting together a functional but bare bones web-server would probably be useful too -- Sacha's Simple REST Framework[^] though is a good place to start.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Agree-ing to Griff, and requesting for an article or the date of it! 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan wrote: and requesting for an article or the date of it!
OK, OK, give me a few weeks. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully weeks aren't Integral multiples of 52! 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, looking forward to the article(s), thanks !
Merry Xmas, Bill
«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. » Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."
|
|
|
|
|
I've experienced the same insights after learning most of my web dev skills from that "yucky ducky" framework you mentioned - Ruby on Rails. The affordances and speed gains you get from things like Rails or .NET MVC are definitely advantageous, but they definitely give you a lot of "magic" to really abstract what's going on. I've found that learning the bare metal technologies that power something such as Rails help me to be a more efficient coder...it's too bad that many people never take that next step and are happy to take on the technical debt and overhead of all that "magic" much too easily.
Happy Coding!
|
|
|
|
|
You also get problems submitting forms when you make your own javascript function called submit(), and try to set the form to call it on submission.
So I'm not surprised about the id thing 
|
|
|
|
|
Also, if you think the web is screwed up, try writing desktop applications for OS X, Linux, and Windows. Good luck with that. You won't even get to writing code before going mental just trying to decipher which APIs are considered current and what language to use. Have fun doing any of the following:
1. Using a single language in all cases, even if it is something like Java that's supposed just work everywhere.
2. Sorting out what menu shortcuts to use and quasi-standards on them.
3. Integrating with the various taskbars.
4. Working on past versions as well as newer versions of the OS.
5. Making an installer that doesn't suck.
6. Providing updates.
7. Working with/around some of the "features" of each system. Gotta love the way Win7 automatically makes dialogs show up behind the current window, that's just so awesome.
As much as the web may be frustrating as all hell, it pales in comparison to the wrist-slitting exercise of writing desktop applications of even the smallest semblance of quality.
Really, the only truly badass, "where's a cliff to fling myself off of?" part of web design is using CSS.
|
|
|
|
|
bantling wrote: Really, the only truly badass, "where's a cliff to fling myself off of?" part of web design is using CSS
This. CSS is the offspring of a rabid Tasmanian Devil and Satan and it is no way a love child.
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, you had me at "yucky ducky languages/frameworks like Ruby on Rails"! 
Back in the early 2000’s I wrote a very thin "web server and client" that ran on a set of AS/400s. Certain events would send data to the AS/400s via HTTP and internal AS/400 events would shoot data out of the AS/400 over HTTP. Thankfully I didn’t have to be concerned with browser stupidity, but spent many days buried in HTTP’s rfc.
- great coders make code look easy
- When humans are doing things computers could be doing instead, the computers get together late at night and laugh at us. - ¿Neal Ford?
|
|
|
|
|
You lot seriously crack me up sometimes
Marc: would this be the same server you've been on about over at Lidnug? if so, then I too think your write-up's going to be rather interesting (I might even contribute to it if you want )
For those of you who are down in the dumps about CSS, don't worry... I'll be starting to write CSS3 Succinctly this week, which should be out Q1 in the new year and I intend to try and make it fun even if it can be a painful subject.
for those of you who really want to get stuck in and learn the in's and out's of the various web server protocols, then may I suggest you spend a delightful evening reading the RFC's at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/[^]
you'll have such a delightful time
Shawty
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Shaw wrote: Marc: would this be the same server you've been on about over at Lidnug?
No, that's a product called Interacx which I never went public with but have used for a client that was migrating from Clarion to .NET.
Long-winded story --
In this particular case, there was some synchronicity in the universe. My experiences with Ruby on Rails and Razor/MVC have left me very dissatisfied with writing web apps, especially with Razor/MVC performance (RoR can run circles around Razor). I also wanted to see what would be involved in writing a web server receptor and other pieces as a plug-in in the HOPE framework. Anyways, my client needed a simple and lightweight intranet server so I figured I could kill two birds (or more) with one piece of code. Sure, I could have gone the PHP route, or Nancy, or even RoR, but I wanted something ridiculously simple to configure and get running. So I've been learning a lot of cool stuff in the process that is really deepening my understanding, and I've got a decent web server with routing, session management and authentication working in about 500 lines of code -- no IIS, no bloat, no heavyweight EF or Rails or whatever ORM -- it's really nice to decouple all that from the job of serving html, css, js, and images.
Peter Shaw wrote: I'll be starting to write CSS3 Succinctly this week, which should be out Q1 in the new year and I intend to try and make it fun even if it can be a painful subject.
Awesome - I have O'Reilly's "CSS3 - the missing manual" but haven't cracked it open yet. I'll be looking forward to your book!
Peter Shaw wrote: for those of you who really want to get stuck in and learn the in's and out's of the various web server protocols, then may I suggest you spend a delightful evening reading the RFC's at
Well, HttpListener isolates me from some of the low level details.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I do know of one server stack that's even simpler than what you where doing in .NET and just as fast.
NodeJS, but that's a discussion for another thread
We need to get together on Skype or something and have a pow-wow ...
Happy Xmas ya-awl
Shawty
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Shaw wrote: NodeJS, but that's a discussion for another thread
Personally, I'm not particularly excited by anything javascript related.
Peter Shaw wrote: We need to get together on Skype or something and have a pow-wow ...
That would be great -- how about sometime early next year? (That sounds more ominous than it actually is).
Merry Christmas to you too!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: When you start typing a link into Chrome (like, the first letter even!), if it can resolve from your history what that link is, it pre-loads the page behind the scene
I actually find this pretty annoying, but am glad that it can be disabled (Chrome has a setting for it). In fact, I take this into account when I create temporary import pages (for a web CMS)... I have seen coworkers write them so that when you visit the URL, the import is started. However, with this Chrome "feature", it can be inadvertently be kicked off without your knowledge. Because of this, I typically add a form to my imports so that I need to click a button to initiate the import process.
By the way, I too have been writing my own web server... kind of. I made a short Node.js app to serve up some markup. It's not much of a web server and it isn't exactly from scratch, but it's fun nonetheless.
Marc Clifton wrote: the bloated dog slow crap that I discovered is MVC Razor
Razor doesn't seem slow to me, unless you mean the compilation.
|
|
|
|
|
As some of you have already read me about, I am working on a Menu-Ribbon all in one class for WPF!
Just to share the love, and as it is not quite article ready yet, here is the link:
http://github.com/superlloyd/MenuRibbon/[^]
Since last time, I now have a nice README page which show how to get started, better overall polishing, and the control behave "reasonably" well with the keyboard navigation (still working on that, realized I had a problem with split button and the fact that word ribbon doesn't do keyboard navigation).
If you are bored, have a look at the code and comments! 
|
|
|
|
|
I really love the idea of creating the Ribbon, but I don't like the Menus. Sorry to say, but that's my opinion.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
No problem, to each it's own taste! 
In my case this library bring me things I need and MenuItem and Ribbon don't bring without much works...
I want an app which looks like visual studio, could load various content, it will edit picture and a Ribbon seems the right choice to put the image editing tools!
It will also have a list of tool window open, and a menu seemed the right choice for that!
Hence.... The RibbonMenu!
Plus the ItemsButton drop "menu item popup" which can contain anything! including things looking like menu item or things looking like custom control, same as word!
|
|
|
|
|
That is correct! I also meant to say the same, but because of our ISP problems I was not able to modifiy the comment I have made.
Everyone has their own taste, and I don't hate that menu thing. But what I mean was, that Ribbon thing is way more better in your package.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, ok, thanks hey!
After spending like a week on Keyboard and Focus navigation I was under the impression the MenuItem are better polished! 
But glad you like the Ribbon Bar!
It need key tips though (unimplemented yet, coming soon...)
|
|
|
|
|
A good software is always an outcome of hours of hair pulling  , but just let a few hairs grow on your head like a plant of course!
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah!
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to hear about what's your motivation to create it? Since .NET 3.5 SP1 there is a Ribbon control for WPF from Microsoft. What you have added?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
My motivation is to have the Menu and the Ribbon together.
Right now they are 2 distinct controls. But in my app (the one I plan to use that control) I want, for example, a "Windows" menu very much like the VS Window menu item: Showing open tool windows as checked menu items. I also want a Ribbon bar for image editing tools.
Finally I like the button drop down in Word2013, some times they looks like a menu item, but sometimes there are custom control in it. I want my MenuItem to support any kind of content with little work (if you put, say a slider, in a .NET SDK MenuItem it will be wrapped in a menu item, I don't wan any item container)
modified 21-Dec-14 10:32am.
|
|
|
|
|
I bookmarked your work - if I ever will do a WPF project I will consider to use it...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
