I'll play Flash advocate for good measure here. We need to keep it interesting, yes?
On 7/29/05, Vinicius Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1st. It impose to you that your client must have a webbrowser (ok, > 99.99 has it) and it must have flash (I don't) >From Macromedia's website (of course, very subjective ;)) "Macromedia Flash Player is the world's most pervasive software platform, used by over 1 million professionals and reaching more than 98% of Internet-enabled desktops worldwide as well as a wide range of devices." Stats: http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html Methodology: http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/npd/ So I don't think you're very representative of most web users. 2nd. It's slow. I don't understand the architecture of flash > components but they lie inside a webbrowser which itself consumes > memory. Well, yeah the webbrowser consumes memory. Wouldn't a "real" RIA consume memory as well? 3rd. You can't do everything that a REAL Rich Interface Application could > do. That's a pretty general accusation. So, my guess is, if you need better user interaction, migrate to a > real RIA, not attempts to do something that looks like RIA. I really > recommend you take a look at HiveBoard :D > If you don't need that, your project could be a webcentric, with just > minor enhancements (aka DHTML, AJAX), you're already at the right > place, you are using Tapestry. I think the view that you either need an "real" RIA on one end or html/AJAX based website on the other is a little too polar. There's probably a lot of room in the middle that serves a lot of people's needs.
