Lan Barnes wrote: >..Your points are cogent and I'm not disputing them. But to reiterate, I'm > describing what *I* would do and why *I* would do it that way. And FWIW, > I do this stuff at work, so my position, while it may be _wrong_ in > technical detail, is nonetheless thought through to the best of my > ability. > > There is a trade-off, as we all know, between development time and > niftiness of programs, and it ain't linear. Basic functionality can be > batted out. Zooming maps that work on all browsers and java > implementations take a different level of effort and testing, and may > not be the first feature to promise to marketing during the design > phase. And if your program is for internal use, you might even find that > zooming graphics are available without javascript and a browser. > > There is a hell of a lot more to designing and writing c/s programs (at > least where I work) than putting whiz-bang keen-o stuff on someone's > box. There are a lot of time-to-roll-out and 80-20 (as in 20% of the > effort gets us 80% of the functionality and perhaps 110% of what anyone > will ever use) discussions.
I not only agree to defend your right to say, but I even agree with what you are saying! But, I guess *I* thought I was talking to the generic you rather than specifically to *YOU* (if you can guess what i mean). Anyway, to restate the point I was trying for: After deciding what to do, and it comes time to decide how to do it, a web-based client server interface _may_ be worth considering: I suggest not discarding it out-of-hand for responsiveness reasons, because HTML+javascript+XMLHttpRequest might be helpful at modest cost & complexity. ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
