Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
 Karl Waclawek wrote: >... > > I didn't say that there are none, just that the ones > I had to implement could not have been done as web client. I don't think anyone said that every application could be done as a web client. Rather, I said that there are great benefits to using a web client and that it is inevitable that in the long run, the benefits of "Windows clients" and Web clients will be merged in a manner that runs across platforms (which is a key benefit of "Web clients"). > ... > Your examples are exactly those that have simple requirements > for interaction client/server interaction. Some of those > we have on the web, simple because - as you said - they > are easy to deploy. Fine, so you are agreeing with me. There are certain advantages to the Web platform that are hard or impossible to emulate with installed, platform-specific technologies. And I am happy to admit that *today* there are advantages to installed, platform-specific technologies that are hard or impossible to emulate with *today's* Web technologies. And perhaps that will always be true to some extent. But the advantages of platform-specific technologies will one by one be ported to the Web platform so that the proporation of applications deployed on the Web will continue to decrease. > ... > Our order entry, e-mail and fax (OCR) processing front ends > are way to heavy on GUI to use a browser. Also, client/server > interaction is occasionally very fine grained, e.g. you > select a category in one combo box, and another list refreshes > accordingly. Don't want to exchange SOAP messages for that, > our network is stretched as it is. I agree that those are all factors of *today's technology* that would lead one to deploy OS-specific rather than Web apps. >>>And often - this is a heretic opinion here - I would prefer >>>DCOM or CORBA over XML for client/middle tier interaction, >>>simply because XML/SOAP imposes a rather simple communication >>>model, unless one is willing to re-invent CORBA based on XML. >> >>How can the two halves of your sentence be reconciled? If XML can >>emulate CORBA then it by definition does not impose a communication >>model that is less sophisticated than CORBA. > > > Well, following that line of thought, using smoke signals > would also be as sophisticated as CORBA (just a little slow). You were the one who used the word "imposes". I wouldn't say that smoke signals impose any particular level of sophistication. They do impose some performance limitations. > My point is: everything that is missing compared > to CORBA I would have to implement myself - or buy some > bulky third party libraries that seem to exist. > But then the question is: Why do that if CORBA already > exists, is mature and free (TAO, OmniORB, MICO). > And don't tell me it is too difficult to use. > I have been there, and it is actually surprisingly simple. If CORBA meets your needs, I will heartily encourage you to use CORBA. Paul Prescod 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
