[thelist] Rich Internet Applications

[Matt Warden]

On 8/14/06, Hershel Robinson <hershel at galleryrobinson.com> wrote:
> 1 Our presumption is that using the browser will reduce overall build time.

I would caution strongly against this assumption. Fat client web
development is basically at the level of OS development before good
libraries. The situation is getting better because one particular
group is paying attention to developing a platform (Yahoo's YUI), but
even that is still in its infancy.

Fat client web development is not easy. Anything beyond a small
application takes the same if not more design and development time as
a native solution. Not only that, but there are some big performance
concerns, especially when we talk about downloading the JavaScript
code. You don't hear a lot about these, because not many people are
building anything bigger than a calendar. But, then again, there's a
reason for that.

If you don't have a specific (and strong) business need to use a web
based solution, I would suggest some careful analysis before going
down that path.

> 3 The interface in question is for internal use, but there is also an
> integrated interface for public use. That public interface will not use
> Flex, it will use HTML/CSS, but the two interfaces are anyhow closely
> related, sharing data and other resources.

Just as an FYI, this is a non-issue. None of #3 suggests you need a
fat client web solution for the private half of the application.

-- 
Matt Warden
Cleveland, OH, USA
http://mattwarden.com


This email proudly and graciously contributes to entropy.