|
I guess the "idea" that I have been musing about has to do with "native" GUI and I guess I am even wrong on the use of that acronym. If I could scroll back, then I would replace all my references to a "native" GUI to read "native, HTML rendered UI", since in the vast majority of cases the GUI we deal with is HTML in a web browser. Maybe there is another name for an HTML rendered UI rather than GUI, but that is what I was thinking.
That said, fat or thin client, if the UI generated by the System i was "rendered graphically" in a client side application I don't think it would matter to the end user as long as it performs well and is easy to use. And, if the development environment for that UI was well integrated, similar to the way PDM/SEU and the like were integrated into 5250 application development, I think we as developers would be better off.
There are those that would say that the UI for the web has put us there already and there are plenty of folks who think that WDSC is the right integrated environment to generate that UI. Maybe that is as functional and integrated as we can get. Since developing a more graphical UI is fundamentally different than developing a text based UI maybe this IS as good as it gets and we'll never see an environment like the integrated text based development I "grew up" with. If such a "native, HTML rendered UI" development environment WAS possible though, it would give the System i a "leg up" on the competition and that was the point of the original thread: How to get the System i more established in the marketplace.
As "Forrest Gump" would say: "And that's all I have to say about that". Pete David Gibbs wrote:
Pete Helgren wrote:Web applications are still a fat client application, in my view. Take a look at the size of the *client* to have to download to run a web application (IE,Firefox, Safari, you name it).Um, I don't think so. A web browser is no more a fat client than a 5250 emulator is. It has no specific awareness of the application it's running. It doesn't have to be updated EVERY TIME a logic change is introduced. And, it can run a huge number of wildly differing applications without any change to it's core code. A fat client (also known as a thick client or rich client) is a client that performs the bulk of any data processing operations itself, but does not necessarily rely on the server. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_(computing)#Fat_clientsMost of us run (still) a fat client called a 5250 emulator and think nothing of it. It is just the client that is needed to run that particular application.I guess you should define 'fat'. CA/400 is 'fat' because it provides a significant amount of functionality besides just 5250 emulation. To run applications on the System i I can run a client that is 75k (telnet.exe on WinXP SP2). That's not fat (imo).IBM could develop and deploy their own fat client application to run GUI's, no different than needing a "fat" 5250 emulator.Like iSeries Navigator? david
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.
midrange.com
