Patrick Branley wrote:
Just to throw another spanner into the works:
Scott's argument seems to be that HTML/CFMX UI's aren't ideal, and it seems like a lot of extra work to develop all these dynamic form/validation solutions using xml when there is a better solution. I.e. Flex.
*burp* - i've had lunch now, so i'm not as moody.
Nah, my argument *man i loose my points easily* was that, it seems funny that we use CFMX to makeup our own language. In that whether you use an XML packet or use <ms:MyCustomTag/> approach, you're effectively inventing your own hybrid language to take care of something that in many ways should already be done? and if not? then why not?
Its like we aren't happy with CFMX and as a stakeholder in Macromedia (both through my career and purchasing power via companies) i find it a weird concept, that we as consumers simply live with such limitation and are happy to re-invent the wheel. It may not be Macromedias exact fault, but in many ways it is. They've got the solution, but are holding it hostage via price tag.
My MossyBlog post(s) was put forward in that " why don't you combine FLEX with CFMX? either as one big tool or splined off but in a more attractive packaged format then 12k".
Everytime I mention the price tag to a pro-macromedian, i get this wind up about "oh but its a once off payment and if you equate it over how many applications you make, it pays for itself" - yeah that theory does sound nice, but i only hear of really rich companies being able to afford it. Even then, i also hear its not an easy sell. (I'm no salesman, that i agree, but i've tried 3 times now for 3 different companies/projects and they all can afford it and then some..still the answer was no. I just had to echo those sweet words "twelve thousand US dollars and it could be yours!" I think it might be the actual number 12? maybe if approached it with 11,999.99 i may get a different reaction? hehe.
Anyway, everything I've read and seen, seems to point to the fact products like Longhorn AXML wil be our future in software, whether its 1-10 years, and AXML seems to be pushing the concept that you can load like HTML a thinware application remotely.
Simple enough concept, we do it daily with HTML, we give a set of instructions, and they then load via a browser, puts operating system level controls in place? - we are all in many ways doing the concept in a half assed way and it struck me as odd that we roll our own language to do something which is even more cumbersome when all said and done *gasp*.
Anywho, it was *supposed* to be an observation but it got into a debate, i'll take partial blame - but we are kind of more educated on the subject then we were yesterday?
Scott. P.S WILL CODE HTML FOR FOOD.
P.S.S
The whole "Cars were expensive in the early days aswell" was simply due to the fact the parts needed were expensive to build. Software isnt as expensive as a car, so the analogy starts loosing depth and straying off to finer points of manufactor vs bottom line(s).
The problem being that flex is quite expensive and very few companies a willing to pay for it.
My question is, if your requirements (or the success/failure of your
product) demand you need to have the rich user experience that flash
provides. What about Central?
From what I see of flex there are a lot of components out of the box giving
you instant access RIA's but eventually you will have to develop your own
flash components to give you the extra widgets you need.
So you could argue that Flex doesn't really give you that much more of an advantage (US 20k worth) of not requiring flash development to produce RIA's.....
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spike Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2004 1:00 PM To: CFAussie Mailing List Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Flex and UIs WAS ( Re: the big oo train, on the right track?)
My beef isn't with anyone specific. My beef is with the overall concept of web-based software. Its got a lit of requirements that aren't meet. Macromedia have a winning lotto ticket, but are holding it reserved to the richer folks. To me that pisses me off, but i can and will live with it.
My overall question put forward wasn't a winge per say, its a question as to why we as cfmx developers seem to constantly make our own language to counteract limitations of HTML/CFMX. Ie Rolling our own XML to dynamically build it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do that because I'm looking for a good way to increase the encapsulation in CFMX apps. The problem being that you often have entities that need to be presented and updated via a HTML interface. The update process also needs validation both client and server side, and the data needs to be persisted to a database that may or may not be pre-existing. I have used XML as the base definition for entities in the past, but I've never been able to come up with a solution that provided me with what I wanted for multiple projects, so I've more or less put that on the back burner for now.
Despite your claims to the contrary, the fact
that no-one else has come up with anything near to Flex either as a
standard, as an open source initiative, or as a product
should give you and
idea that it really isn't as easy as you're making out (I'm
not counting
Microsoft and windows forms/Avalon because that isn't a product yet).
It isn't? last time i looked in MSDN you can download it (if you have an MSDN account).
Yeah, but you probably aren't going to build mission critical apps with it. That was what I meant. Besides, that's not really an alternative to HTML, it's more of an alternative to the currrent way of building windows apps.
Its not a question of whether or not its as easy i as i think. To answer that, it is easy as i think why? because we all seem to be f#9kin experts at rolling our own XML/CFC solution to handle it? if it was so hard, then why people like taco/myself/xyz all rolling these XML solutions to do our UI. To answer that, because we do think its an easy solution that hasn't been meet yet or meet within our price range. Is it a success? ask anyone who's done one and if they are truthful and re-use it a lot, then yes it is. Why not give out some incentive to get all this b.s into one package? its a nice dream, but a good question to ask don't you think?
If you think it's that easy I'd suggest you put it out there and let everyone else see how to do it because, like I said, I haven't come up with anything that actually saves me a whole lot of time from project to project.
Visuals are my thing, its
what blows my hair back, and people like some of my "admin systems" for it. Great, i don't expect that same level of need for all applications, but if in theory my application worked exactly the same as an app you did (code for code) only my UI is much more visually stimulating, who would win? point is we often do actually judge a book by its cover we just choose not to admit it.
I won't disagree that your apps may be more visually appealing, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than that.
Again, I'm betting that it won't be quite what you're after
so we'll be back
to a round of questions like "why couldn't they have done it
like this?" The
answer is that there either aren't enough people asking for
that to justify
putting it in, or it isn't as simple as you think.
Thats the nature of evolution. We do it now. We got pissed off having to walk everywhere, so we figured out a way to make beasts do it for us. We then got sick of them wondering off all the time or dying on us, so we made a car. Now we are sick of having to fuel the cars all the time and having to drive them on land, so now we want hover cars. We forget that if it weren't for people pushing the envelope, we'd all still be walking on our knuckles.
Yes, and just how much did the early cars cost?
They certainly weren't sold at rock-bottom prices so that the manufacturers could "pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap".
THat inlies my underlining point. I keep seeing people roll their own XML solution to emulate or touch on products like FLEX/LONGHORN/XUL, yet i ask? WHY?
Because we've seen that it can be done and we want a piece of the action I suspect.
It was more of a "has anyone else asked this question aswell"
That wasn't how it came across to me. It could have been because I'd just
read your most recent post on Mossy blog.
Sorry if I misinterpereted you.
- it some how went downhill and while my current jobs pissing me off with regards to the projects complexities, its privelleged information and has been forced into this thread, resulting it being out of context to what i was asking and now my laundry is nicely aired on CFAUSSIE :)
No more so than you've been airing it yourself on your blog ;)
so thanks for
that one :D
- why not next time kick me in the nuts :D
I might, but I've only got little short legs and they don't reach all the way to Brisbane :p
Spike
--- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
--- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
