2009/1/26 Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[email protected]>: > On 26-ene-09, at 17:06, Stefan de Konink wrote: >> Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: >>> That'd great :-) >> >> I still would find it a good thing to have a desktop application >> that is >> able to do the same thing. (aka connect to running cherokee instances, >> and do exactly the same thing as cherokee-admin). > > If we get to improve cherokee-admin usability it should provide almost > the same user experience as a desktop application, actually.
Agree here, a desktop application usually means a hell of a dependency tree (python? java? XUL? Gtk+? Qt?), if people are up to deal with a web server, you can be 99.9999999999% sure they have a web browser around and at the moment I cannot think of any feature a native ui can give that a modern web ui couldn't for this particular usecase. > I don't have anything against a hypothetical desktop application, > although I do think that we ought to focus our attention and effort on > improving Cherokee-admin. > > -- > Greetings, alo > http://www.alobbs.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Cherokee mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee > -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
