In the past I have used and I am using several RAD frameworks/tools: openxava, apache isis, wavemaker, nowicket I know that doing a rad tool is very difficult because you must cover all use cases of your users even when they do not seems strategic to you. I knew there was something you liked in Radzen after all Do you mind telling us what? I posted because I fell in love with Radzen. They won't even invest a couple minutes to post. I guess existing security isn't that much of a problem for those cases. Most of the people we have spoken with looked for a solution for developing new applications. This issue hasn't indeed been brought up before. Most evaluators will simply see functionality is missing and move on to the next competitor. It doesn't surprise me this has not been brought up before. I am glad you have put Radzen in the same basket with those industry veterans. Frankly a lot of Radzen features happened after we created similar examples that required custom code. I agree that having this as an out of the box feature is better. We created the demo to show that it is still possible via custom code. We are working on other tasks at the moment. Well I didn't say it wouldn't be implemented.
I think this is a glaring weakness in Radzen when one is evaluating tools like Radzen, PHP Maker, ASP.NET Maker and AppGini. If the code is generated, you'll know the code is the latest version. You'll have to be sure defects are actually defects and not issues with the client having an old version of the code or bugs they introduced. I also think this will be support nightmare for your team. It will be another "time wasting" task that could easily be handled by the tool simply generating the code. or keep it manually synchronized with code on GitHub is another "wheel" I don't want to reinvent. I, personally, dislike adding "outside infrastructure code" to my application that should be generated by the tool, maintained and updated by the tool vendor. Those who don't want or need it simply ignore it. It could be a simple panel with a bunch of options. We will have it in mind should we decide to implement out of the box support for such cases.Īfter reading post and yours, I'm wondering why this wouldn't be implemented "right out of the box." This is a good way of handling custom security for sure.
0 kommentar(er)
