[Tfug] Browser based UI's

[Joshua Zeidner]

  Flex is a viable solution for some situations.  GWT is still a bit
difficult in some areas, it requires knowledge of many things:
Javascript, Java, HTML, DOM, etc.  The concept of compiling Java into
Javascript sounds like it would be problematic, but Google has
accomplished this fairly well and maintains the concepts at a
fundamental level.  For some, keeping Flash out of the equation is a
requirement, in which case I believe GWT is the most powerful and cost
effective solution.  Also it is the most powerful open source
solution, especially if you are using server side Java as you can
leverage code between client and server.  No other AJAX library even
comes close to the manageability of GWT (a highly useful feature is
being able to run the debugger in the client code).  Secondly I would
expect Google to develop UI code that is cross compatible from GWT web
browser to Android (but you will probably get this from Flex/Flash as
well).

  I would say the key deficiency of Flex in this comparison is its
licensing.  Although $300 may be the cost at the outset, you lose a
lot of future possibilities by committing to a proprietary platform.

  -jmz

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:33 AM, keith smith<klsmith2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> If you are wanting to stay open source that would be a consideration.
>
> If you are looking for the best solution and $200 or $300 is not an issue then Flex might be a better solution.
>
> I'm not familiar with GWT.  On it's face you are looking at browser compatibility issues.  With Flex you are running in a plug in.  I'm not all that familiar with Flex either however it seems things like maintaining state would be much easier with Flex and removing the browser compatibility issues would be nice.
>
> Another thing to consider is if you use Flex you might not have learns and keep up with several libraries and languages.
>
> In a nutshell what I expect Flex has to offer is simplicity while offering the ability to create a browser based application and like Java Flex is write once run everywhere.
>
> I am interested to hear your thoughts on what I have said.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Keith Smith
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Joshua Zeidner <jjzeidner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Joshua Zeidner <jjzeidner at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Tfug] Browser based UI's
>> To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 10:16 AM
>>  Flex is a similar idea to GWT, but
>> is not open source.
>>
>>  -jmz
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:14 AM, keith smith<klsmith2020 at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > If you want to create a browser based application and
>> make it easier to create, why not use Flex?
>> >
>> > ------------------------
>> > Keith Smith
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 7/15/09, Joshua Zeidner <jjzeidner at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Joshua Zeidner <jjzeidner at gmail.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Tfug] Browser based UI's
>> >> To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
>> >> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:57 AM
>> >>   this is a good point, but
>> >> historically the commercial browser
>> >> environment resisted the introduction of java to
>> the
>> >> UI.  GWT is an
>> >> interesting evolution in that it relies on web
>> standards
>> >> like HTML and
>> >> Javascript.  There are many situations I see
>> where
>> >> people are building
>> >> web apps for a limited user set and would probably
>> save a
>> >> lot of money
>> >> just by deploying in Java.
>> >>
>> >>   -jmz
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Bexley Hall<bexley401 at yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> >>   have you tried GWT?
>> >> >
>> >> > But that's part of the issue.  What's the
>> point of a
>> >> browser
>> >> > based interface if you have to rewrite all
>> your
>> >> applications in
>> >> > Java?  I.e., to me, the beauty of a browser
>> interface
>> >> would
>> >> > be that it could represent a "dumb client"
>> and leave
>> >> all the
>> >> > smarts server side.  If you're going to
>> deliver the
>> >> application
>> >> > to the client (instead of just the
>> *interface*), then
>> >> why not just
>> >> > build a VM that runs on bare iron and code
>> directly in
>> >> that
>> >> > (and skip talking to http://localhost).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> >> > Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> >> > Subscription Options:
>> >> > http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> >> Subscription Options:
>> >> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> > Subscription Options:
>> > http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>> Subscription Options:
>> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>