It really isn't either or. Meaning Fat client is dead, Thin client is dying, long live "Rich client".
To analyze this we need some definitions of these marketing-speak terms: 1. Fat client - VB to the database. Big fat major install process, DLL hell. 2. Thin client - Web Browser with HTML, everything on the server. In my mind this is Mainframe again. Usage spikes, roling F5 of death. 3. Rich client - hybrid of the two. So rich client is supposed to meld the two together. The problem is that the best rich client system is abortive at the moment. Mozilla's XUL was the most valid attempt to day. Unfortunately, they really haven't invested in it the way they should. For Java, Sun abandoned the Blackwood project which provided Java bindings for XUL (which would have KICKED ASS!). We must move the display rendering and all of that traditional client behavior back on to the client. That being said. Applets aren't the answer. XAML (Microsoft), XUL, the new generation of this stuff may be the answer once the unified standard emerges. -andy > From: "David Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing > list."<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:28:43 -0400 > To: "Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing list." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Juglist] Applets vs Servlets > > I was recently evaluating a program that built its web interface using > applets that were converted from its java client application. The applets > are servered up from a tomcat server. I was wondering what the group > thought of this approach versus a more traditional J2EE approach and are > there any problems that this would cause that we should be aware of. > > > _______________________________________________ > Juglist mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org _______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
