[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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
|
