New topic: An important XOJO WE(b) question.
<http://forums.realsoftware.com/viewtopic.php?t=47751> Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ] Previous topic | Next topic Author Message J.Sh3ppard Post subject: An important XOJO WE(b) question.Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:04 pm Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:44 pm Posts: 616 Important XOJO WE(b) question. Since WE demo users will finally be able to save our demo projects I am planning on getting into WE development in my extra time at least for testing purposes to learn if WE is usable for me or not. The BIG XOJO WE(b) question is : Will I be able to BUILD a demo WE project that allows me to remotely test run it on a VPS or dedicated server without being tethered to mother IDE ? That is really the only way to test WE's real world capabilities and speed and to learn whether or not it's worth a purchase. It also helps us to learn what a suitable VPS/server is before we make a hefty purchase on WE and that helps us budget. For example that $7.00/month VPS may not be enough to make the WE monkeys fly. It might require a $20.00/VPS. Or depending on your WE goals a dedicated server. Better to know BEFORE the WE purchase, thanks. I know (us) developers can already run the WE project locally with mommy IDE on the local machine but this does not tell me it's real world usability or performance. Things locally run very fast. That is very different than how WE runs on VPSes or even a dedicated server across the net. The internet introduces latency which can get pretty fugly fairly quick. For many customers on the fence between a WE purchase or not purchasing being able to build and remotely test deploy our WE demo apps in the wild could make the difference between money in XOJO's pocket or not. To me having this is apparent but then again to me it was shocking not being able to save a WE (demo) project while demoing WE. Top JohnV Post subject: Re: An important XOJO WE(b) question.Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:39 pm Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:38 pm Posts: 228 I dont think you will be able to remotely deploy the application without the license. It runs just fine on your development computer/ local LAN for testing. Top J.Sh3ppard Post subject: Re: An important XOJO WE(b) question.Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 pm Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:44 pm Posts: 616 JohnV wrote:I dont think you will be able to remotely deploy the application without the license. That's really going to be a big disappointment then. They lose nothing by allowing a compiled WE app to run with the typical nag screen at start and a limited (say 10 min) life. Similar to the desktop apps. JohnV wrote:It runs just fine on your development computer/ local LAN for testing. I know you use WE but I'm not sure you realize the differences of what I wrote. Locally it performs well and is easy to get running. On a real server (remote from mother IDE) across the internet it's different. Btw, I've poked at your WE app and I've crashed it twice (believe it was nil object), and more importantly your WE app suffers from another big concern of mine about WE apps which I haven't recently posted about : Why do WE apps flatline after about 6 minutes of non-use? Your WE app included. Load your WE app, select some options and wait for the data to be updated. Then go get some coffee for about 6+minutes. When I come back your WE app is DOA and nothing will revive it except a reload. I can click buttons and use the popup menus and according to little snitch the data is being sent but the server never responds... If this is how all WE apps are going to be then I don't know if I can ever use them. DOA after about 6 minutes of non-use isn't acceptable to me I doubt it's an internet connection because I have also tested this with having a consistent data flow such as real time stock quotes or streaming music from iTunes. They work flawlessly but WE apps are DOA. Hope it can be fixed whatever it is. Top taylor-design Post subject: Re: An important XOJO WE(b) question.Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:15 pm Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:15 am Posts: 657 Location: Southern California J.Sh3ppard wrote:They lose nothing by allowing a compiled WE app to run with the typical nag screen at start and a limited (say 10 min) life. Similar to the desktop apps. Except that one could potentially include JavaScript that blocks the nag screen. And the CGI version is made to launch/quit/launch any way, so 10 minutes might not prevent all uses. A better option would be for the free version to allow a user to request a test key. The user could then build and test a WE app for, say, one day. The WE app would require Internet access to Xojo servers and wouldn't even launch without a successful validation. Proper use of public/private key encryption should prevent someone from just faking the validation server. This would take a bit of work, and there would still be the risk of a hacker modifying the binary. Quote:Why do WE apps flatline after about 6 minutes of non-use? Interesting. When developing Web Custom Controls I included a feature to periodically ping the server. In my tests the controls would lose communication after a few minutes without it (I seem to remember 10 being the number). I didn't think at the time this was application wide. My wcc demo app remains responsive (just tested it to 15 mins), but it's also using this feature. Just having a WebTimer on the page that executes a bit of code would probably be enough to work around this issue. Perhaps a feedback item is in order? _________________ Daniel L. Taylor Custom Controls for Real Studio WE! Visit: http://www.webcustomcontrols.com/ Top msssltd Post subject: Re: An important XOJO WE(b) question.Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 1:53 am Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:05 am Posts: 557 Location: Emsworth, UK taylor-design wrote:A better option would be for the free version to allow a user to request a test key. You then need an infrastructure to issue and revoke keys - more cost. Why not just time limit the server side executable to 30 minutes. That would provide for proper deployment and production testing without allowing production use and without any ongoing cost, which ultimately customers have to pay for. Anyhow, I think the discussion is immaterial. Everything I am hearing about Xojo sounds like a business stuck in the 1990s. i.e. Focussed on imposing what the business wants, rather than delivering what customers need and want. _________________ Yes it's me in the avatar Top Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ] -- Over 1500 classes with 29000 functions in one REALbasic plug-in collection. The Monkeybread Software Realbasic Plugin v9.3. http://www.monkeybreadsoftware.de/realbasic/plugins.shtml [email protected]
