Re: The "Presentation" Layer

[Trevor Perry <trevor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

And, this extends well into the iPhone concept, where you have a thick
client in your hand and can interact with the application better than ever.
I find that a thick client can most often can supply a RICH user experience
with some depth, and this is good for the user experience.

I guess it will be interesting to see how this evolves, given the propensity
for some i software vendors to slam thick client in order to sell their thin
products. And, the predictions of thin clients taking over the world have
not yet come true, so you might as well develop that BartellUI!
 


On 7/17/08 11:20 AM, "Aaron Bartell" <aaronbartell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Wouldn't the preference be to have your OWN thick client, deployed better
> (more like Flash than iTunes), and get rid of all the issues of client
> discrepancies?
>
> BINGO!  Better stated than what I said.
>
> What's so very interesting to me is that IBM chooses not to develop their
> own Flex/Silverlight/JavaFX.  Now this is most likely because of their love
> of Java, but I feel they forgot how successful they were with their
> proprietary 5250 spec/implementation.  Adobe/Microsoft/Sun are following in
> their footsteps 25 years later and saying it is "new".  The look and feel is
> most definitely new, but the infrastructure has been done so many times
> before it makes you wonder why Adobe/Microsoft/Sun don't look at how
> previous architectures accomplished the task with blazing speed and
> efficiency by black boxing things.  Also note that for these companies to be
> successful they will need to find a solid place to put the median of when to
> make things loosely coupled (i.e. use XML as the interface) and when to make
> it more "binary" and proprietary.  An example of a solution I would love to
> see is GWT (Java) communicating with Flex for data entry heaving
> applications.  In this case the user would download Flex/Flash (similar to
> installing a 5250 client) and then be able to communicate with any other
> Flex/Flash applications after that because it understands the "Flex data
> stream" (which doesn't exist today that I know of but would be simiarl to
> the 5250 data stream - just with more bells and whistles)
>
> I have only done a single/simple Flex application to date and from what I
> can tell it holds a lot of promise, but they are also "playing with fire"
> because they require you to download an entire SWF file of compiled screens
> vs. rendering some sort of streamed instructions from the server and having
> Flex just be a very thin client layer used solely for rendering and events
> back to the server.
>
> Aaron Bartell
> http://mowyourlawn.com