Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > There is one additional point, and that is, the generic > client has to handle multiple languages which of course > web browsers do. I do wonder what the overhead of that > is, but given the managed code idea, it can't be horrific. > The reason I bring it up is that one advantage of say, > VFP, is the Fox language itself. It is easy to work > in a relational system given the commands available. In the standard modern architecture, you would use something like VFP to talk to the relational database on the server side and generate an XML view of the data. (XML+HTTP or XML+SOAP, depending on your tastes) Then the client neither knows nor cares that the data is stored relationally. And you can hook up dozens of different kinds of clients. A simple HTML form one for the lynx users, a DHTML one for the IE 6 users, a VB one for those willing to install a server app, a Java one for the Linux clients, etc. It isn't browser OR VFP. It's using each at what it excels at. So instead of claiming that browsers are good relational clients I'll turn the question around and ask you why you choose not to implement in this neo-canonical style. This model is compelling enough to drive relational clients from PowerBuilder to Visual FoxPro out of the vast majority of today's development shops. 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