User bio
404 bio not found
Member since Nov 9, 2015
Pinned posts:
Replies:

I strongly relate to this. Zen was a huge part of what sold me on InterSystems tech 15 years ago when I started here as an intern - for all the reasons you've described - and if I want to throw together a really quick POC that just has results of a class query shown in a table, with maybe some basic interactions with the data, I might still use it.

That said, for my team's work and even for my own personal projects, I've found the combination of isc.rest and isc.ipm.js to be *almost* as quick as Zen. With something like Angular with an IRIS back-end (consisting of a bunch of %Persistent classes), you need to write:
1. REST APIs for all your basic CRUD operations, queries, and business logic
2. Client code to call all those REST APIs
3. Client code for all the models used in those REST APIs
4. The actual UI

Suppose you want to make a simple change to one of your models - say, adding a property to a class and making it available in the UI. With Angular, this probably means changes at all four levels; with Zen, you get to skip 1-3 entirely. That's compelling. An inevitable side effect of this is that your application's API surface (and therefore attack surface) is enormous and near-impossible to fully enumerate. It is possible to secure a Zen UI, but much easier to shoot yourself in the foot.

isc.rest makes (1) super easy - add a parent class to your %Persistent class and do a few easy parameter/method overrides to get CRUD and queries basically for free, and write a bit of XML if you want to do fancier things to expose business logic or class queries. This provides enough metadata to generate an OpenAPI spec, which can then be used to automate (2) and (3) with the help of openapi-generator. So while you can't skip 1-3 entirely, this toolset makes it all significantly faster.

Sorry we missed that. I started to look around for best practices and forgot to circle back.

It's a fantastic question, and I think your gut feeling from https://github.com/intersystems/git-source-control/discussions/343 is correct - the local-to-the-server repo should be in a place accessible from all mirror members, provided you can do this in a way that doesn't introduce a single point of failure operationally.

If that location is unavailable, you won't be able to do development, but operations on the running instance shouldn't be impacted otherwise (and that location being unavailable would be something that needs to be fixed immediately anyway).

Open Exchange applications:
Certifications & Credly badges:
Global Masters badges:
Followers:
Following: