Hi!
Javier Borrajo wrote:
> Java applets are heavy in use of client RAM,
> network download is a problem,
Not with JDK1.3.
> browser compatibility is a headache,
Use the plugin.
> client installation raises doubts about
> being real thin clients,
Do you count caching of applets as client installation? Isn't this
basically what the W2K installer does?
> and then any Java programmer can put business rules
> in his/her applet code.
With the emphasis on *can*. The more powerful tool you use, the more
possibilities to screw up. No surprise there.
> HTML 4.0 clients look good because RAM use is what the browser will use
> anyway, and DHTML, HTML Data Binding, XML, RDS etc provide
> lots of functionality and user interactivity. Of course the programmer can
> abuse this power and put business rules in the client, but then it is a
> question of
> good SW engineering to avoid it.
As above then?
> Conclusion: IMHO a good SW developer can develop usable clients
> with DHTML/RDS/etc if the user can standardize on IE4/5.
And if you cannot? (I.e. internet scenario)
> The same SW engineer will face a lot of problems
> with JDK 1.1 clients because of RAM use and download times.
Why do you compare the latest IE with old Java? The plugin is available
for use now.
> Of course some functionality just cannot be done with HTML 4.0
> but if it can be done, we want to do it. MicroSoft is doing a
> great job expanding the limits of what HTML clients can do
> -- guess why? ;-)
Let me guess: because they do what they always do, and try to force
everyone to use IE5?
> BTW in my experience there is little risk of business-rule violations
> because of DHTML browser incompatiblities.
"Little risk"? I'd like zero risk, thank you very much.
> The client either
> works fine or does not work at all. It is possible to check USER_AGENT
> headers at the server or use several client side tricks to work around
> incompatiblities.
Why use tricks? They take an enourmous amount of time to come up with,
and you have to keep adding them as time goes.
> It's a shame Navigator is so behind in implementing W3C standards
> so that we must rely on IE4/5.
I beg to differ on the "must" thing, but a new Navigator version would
be nice, yes.
regards,
Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www-und.ida.liu.se/~ricob684
Question reality
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
