× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Which begs the question: if speed is really the issue, why aren't you
pushing 5250 applications?

I think we both know that 5250 has become unacceptable because of it's
non-GUI-ness so I will assume you don't want more of a response on this
front. I am looking for the next best alternative to 5250.

<Joe>
No, I would take it as "How much more productive is the user with a browser
vs. a thick client." And "How much longer does it take to make a thick
client, and how much more does it cost to support it?" Balancing those
questions is what an IT manager does. Architects and academics think up
cool ways to do things; managers figure out how to pay for them.
</Joe>

I am trying as best I can to stay on user interface (user experience) and
NOT deployment. I am not ignorant to the fact that deployment and other
messes do play into the mix, but I am just debating user experience (or at
least trying to keep it to just that).

Far be it from to suggest that you might be displaying a little bit of a
tendency to repeat other people's complaints without really understanding
the underlying issues, Aaron, but it seems to me that you might be
displaying a little bit of a tendency to repeat other people's complaints
without really understanding the underlying issues. :)

Not in the least - I have very-much-so lived through JSF's sucky-ness. I
developed, from scratch, and maintain an application where the entire UI is
in JSF (about 120 dynamic pages at last count). Well, most of it is, except
where JSF sucked it up and I had to retro fit back to JSP to make things
work. There are things I love about JSF (ease of tying button clicks to
methods) and things I hate about it (anytime you deviate from what the spec
authors or spec implementers thought would be "the right way" you can get
yourself into many wasted hours of trying to "work around" the framework).


I'm guessing here, but I don't think you've ever tried to deploy a
multi-platform thick client application. Remember, even if you go the route
of a renderer (e.g. a rich client), the renderer itself is a full-blown
thick client, subject to all the vagaries of thick client distribution).

You are correct. I have never deployed a multi-OS desktop application, or
rather, I haven't pointedly tried to test for desktops outside of Windows.
That is why I put the disclaimer in there that I thought it wouldn't be
easy, just that the number of variables would potentially be less (i.e.
developing for 3 OSes vs. developing for 3 browsers on 3 OSes which would
give you 9 things to thoroughly test).

Good luck deploying it across 10 operating systems.

If the need/money was there I would do 10 operating systems (just like
anyone here would do 3 browsers per OS). The fact is that I would probably
code for 2, maybe 3.

It's not a hack. It's an easily implemented feature. The biggest problem
is going from an normal browser session to a chromeless one, because the
system thinks it's a popup. But if you're going to write your own thick
client, it's almost inconsequential to write your own chromeless browser.

Our definitions of hack vary then. You needed to do that because the
environment (browser) forced it on you, otherwise you would have just
started the application in a chromeless browser vs. having to create it as a
child window.

You can implement type ahead with Ajax.

Example? I haven't seen this anywhere yet. What I have seen in the
community is they consider "type ahead" to be Google's Suggest features.


But for those applications that absolutely require type ahead, I again
assume you're planning to use a 5250 interface, because that is by far the
fastest interface available.

I think we are starting to reason away good things and settling for less.
Maybe less is becoming acceptable? Maybe once the fun looks of web pages
wear off we will realize that we need more than cool things to keep our
business efficient? Web pages have done such a great job of looking pretty
and surprising us with their "new" functionality that I think we are using
that as a crutch to settle for less.

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com




As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.