[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hello Michael,
And there was me, thinking that the industry had regained its sanity after
the crazy and unsuccessful experiment called "client-server computing"!
(The reality, of course, is that there's room for both...)
Didier:
Can you expand Michael. What did you found insane in the client server
"experiment" ?
a) the rich user experience? I guess this wasn't that, doesn't it?
b) the cost of ownership and more particularly the cost of installing the
software on every station.
c) the transformation of a data model into another one encoded in apps
without any tracking tool (the knowledge of how an object is represented)?
In every platform it seems that we have this problem still unresolved by our
industry and barely in the radar of our academic community. Curious no? I
can ask to an object what are your properties and most probably what are
their types (reflectivity) but I still cannot ask an object: how can you be
represented? In the Web architecture I can ask a resource what is the mime
type, does a mime type is equivalent to a representation? If yes, we may
have the beginning of an answer in the REST architecture. It implies that
the client need to know in advance all the representations? Oooops a bug
there, client are not born...sorry made with that innate knowledge.
d) other? Something I need to know...
Personally I found insane the cost of ownership. Or maybe I should say not
insane but surely expensive. The latter is now resolved in different
platforms: java, .net and AJAX. You post on a server and the code is
deployed on all stations without installation. So b) is resolved.
So, Michael, so what was insane? I am curious to know. Or I didn't
understand the meaning of what you said (different possible
interpretations). In that case, be more explicit on what was insane.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
