tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5419182.post4388683167068909358..comments2008-04-11T12:59:00.656-07:00Jimmy Schementihttps://profiles.google.com/116380716127564408544noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5419182.post-32578802984832672642008-04-11T12:59:00.000-07:002008-04-11T12:59:00.000-07:00@michael: Well, if I give the code out today it will only work with Silverlight. =) Once Moonlight gets up to snuff then it'll just work in that as well. Though, the only requirement for a host is that it runs real Ruby in the browser; Silverlight is the only thing that does that today.<BR/><BR/>@josh: Gotta have views on the client if you're gonna run real controller code. =) <BR/><BR/>My thinking about "when do controllers go to the client" is whenever they're needed. Though, this is going to be hard, because for any rendered action, you need to see if there are any "links" to client actions. If so, the controller that action is in, plus any dependencies it may have on other controllers/modules/views, needs to be sent to the client. The hard part is all these dependencies are dynamic (for instance, if you say "User" and it's not defined already, Rails will require /app/models/User.rb for you). Realistically, I may just send the controller, all the models, all the libs, and the actions views. <BR/><BR/>Another gotcha is "what if a client action calls another client action?" =) So, it's not such an easy problem, and I'm not gonna solve by speculating ... I'll just have to make it and go from there.Jimmy Schementihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05370777584064015818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5419182.post-19907207292220164202008-04-11T07:04:00.000-07:002008-04-11T07:04:00.000-07:00congratulations on getting it working!<BR/><BR/>I really like the idea of sending the views as well.<BR/><BR/>Are the controllers sent all at once, or is it on by request basis? For example, someone requests /users/list<BR/>and the entire users controller gets sent down, along with all the view associated with that controller, or are they all sent in the initial request?Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13666102861045517530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5419182.post-86198531023373017352008-04-11T04:55:00.000-07:002008-04-11T04:55:00.000-07:00That is pretty sweet, you should generalize it a bit though so you don't HAVE to use silverlight, be interesting to see what other hosts could be used. Moonlight for instance. Very, very cool though.Michael Letterlehttp://blog.prokrams.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5419182.post-28433646934469380812008-04-11T02:18:00.000-07:002008-04-11T02:18:00.000-07:00Oh, and to answer you last question Josh:<BR/><BR/>"a copy of this controller would be sent to the client when someone visits /foo."<BR/><BR/>So today the entire controller is sent to the client. In the future, I'll also send down the views for all client actions as well (once I get erb working).<BR/><BR/>It'll be interesting to see if I can keep this "figuring out all the dependencies" game going =)Jimmy Schementihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05370777584064015818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5419182.post-90038609248687473842008-04-11T01:54:00.000-07:002008-04-11T01:54:00.000-07:00By the way, I got this example working today! Without "client :time" it works as usual, making an AJAX request when clicking on the "Show time" link. But when you add "client :time", clicking on "Show time" simply runs the code on the client! Awesome!<BR/><BR/>I'm probably going to put this up on RubyForge ... just not sure whether I should make my own project or stick it in the IronRuby? Regardless, code is coming =)Jimmy Schementihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05370777584064015818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5419182.post-5826353013535129082008-04-11T01:46:00.000-07:002008-04-11T01:46:00.000-07:00The rational behind using link_to_remote is because I want the code to work regardless of whether "client :time" is there or not. Idea being you write you app without this client/server division in mind, but not have to rewrite any code when you do make the "client or server" decision.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't overload link_to_function when it takes a string, since code today depends on that being JavaScript. However, when it takes a block I could run it with Silverlight if available. <BR/><BR/>I'd definitely have link_to_silverlight_function, but its existence is unrelated to running controller code on the client. Granted, very useful though, as it's a much more explicit way to run code in Silverlight (and probably the lower hanging fruit =P).Jimmy Schementihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05370777584064015818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5419182.post-85784155687389686632008-04-07T12:18:00.000-07:002008-04-07T12:18:00.000-07:00Wow this looks great.<BR/><BR/>The "link_to_remote" thing seems a bit awkward since it's being run on the client, though. The "link_to_function" method would be more natural, since it's a local function, or better yet: "link_to_silverlight_function"<BR/><BR/>The client call at the beginning seems really clean. Does it send the whole controller to the client, then? That wasn't completely clear.Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13666102861045517530noreply@blogger.com