[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!

• To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@p...>
• Subject: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
• From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
• Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:15:37 -0400
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0DF7E5@h...> <3DB0C065.6010509@p...> <001101c27729$eb7c1fa0$0207a8c0@karl> <3DB0EE0A.6040809@p...>

> Karl Waclawek wrote:
> >...
> > 
> > This works only when the information exchanged and the behaviour
> > of the client is rather simple. As a corporate developer I have
> > not come across a client yet that I could have implemented
> > with a browser, not from a GUI capability point of view,
> > nor from a user interaction standpoint.
> 
> I'm amazed to hear that. You're a corporate developer and your 
> corporation has not deployed a single web client app.

I didn't say that there are none, just that the ones 
I had to implement could not have been done as web client.

> Not bug tracking. Not content management. Not issue tracking. Not expense report 
> submission. Are you saying your intranet does not use HTTP POST, only 
> HTTP GET?

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.

However, the ones we previously had as Windows apps were
seen as a step backwards from the user's point of view,
because they find the browser UI rather clumsy.

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.

> > 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).

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.

Karl

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
  • Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Which is better (for medical data)?
• Next by Date: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
• Previous by thread: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
• Next by thread: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread