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