RE: Right-sizing the client (was RE: ODBC (was RE: Green screen - it's time is over ))

Joe,

Thanks...!  Seems like wisdom, to me anyway.

jt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 9:55 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: Right-sizing the client (was RE: ODBC (was RE: Green screen
> - it's time is over ))
>
>
> > 1)  What is your understanding of the terms?
>
> The definitions have changed over the years.  Originally, a thick
> client was
> one where business logic (including things like database transaction
> validation and update) was actually done on the client.  Thin-client
> referred to applications where the client code was limited to user
> interface, and communicated with a server on the host for any databae
> access.
>
> This has changed, as I said earlier.  The advent of the browser ushered in
> the concept of the "ultra-thin" client, meaning an application where the
> user needed no code other than that which came with the computer (or was
> freely available on the Internet).
>
> My personal definition: thick client means applications where custom code
> needs to be loaded on the client.  Client Access or a browser is
> not custom
> code.  A Java jar file is custom code.  So, for me a thin client is pretty
> much limited to a browser-based application.
>
>
> > 2)  What are your objections to thick clients?  (Or if you've
> > already posted
> > them, could you point me in that direction.)
>
> I'm not particularly biased one way or the other, except that
> thick clients
> are much harder to manage.  I've designed both.  If you have a centralized
> distribution technique, thick clients can be managed successfully and
> provide much better integration with your desktop applications.  A
> thin-client (that is, browser-based) application, while easier to manage,
> does not provide the same level of integration.  Things like drag and drop
> integration to desktop applications simply isn't there.
>
> > 3)  What is your view of a "right-sized" client.  I think this
> question is
> > KEY...
>
> It depends on the situation.  For intranet and even extranet applications
> where your user is someone in a predefined group of people over whom you
> have some level of control, then a thick client may well be a
> good solution.
> However, this same group may be just as comfortable with a broswer-based
> solution, depending on the business requirements.  My work over the last
> year or two has proven, at least to me, that HTML can be used as
> a pure data
> entry interface nearly as productive as the standard 5250 we grew up with.
>
> So I guess the only combination I WOULDN'T recommend would be thick client
> for Internet applications.  When you have no control over the end user's
> configuration, the amount of work required to make your
> application work on
> every possible machine is probably counter-productive, and unless your
> application is very mature and stable, the bandwidth required to
> keep it up
> to date might also be prohibitive.
>
> Joe Pluta
> www.plutabrothers.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
> mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>