HttpView2 versus Seaside
Last updated at 6:51 pm UTC on 2 January 2018
HttpView2 exploits the HTTP request/response model that Seaside abstracts away.
This makes HttpView2 well suited for RESTful, asynchronous web applications that don't require an high degree of interactivity, while Seaside is ideal for complex, interactive web applications.
With a little work, HV2 and Seaside may be integrated, giving you the power of both frameworks.
Avi [Bryant] created Seaside and Goran [Krampe] created HttpView2. The main difference was the dispatching mechanism. By that I mean how a URI in a request finds the objects it needs to return a response. Continuations in Seaside required a 24-character token. HttpView2 was more RESTful in that it used conventional looking URIs (i.e. /page/secondtierpage/resource.jpg).
HttpView2 never adopted a canvas. If you download it into Squeak using SqueakMap you will see it still uses a builder called HVHtmlBuilder.
A half completed canvas is there, but was never used.
As a result, the page descriptions are messier, because one of the virtues of a one-tag-one-class canvas system (as implemented in the Seaside class WAHtmlCanvas) is a neater looking method . I should point out that the canvas is what Seaside uses to this day.