Everything is "doable" via browser, but it doesn't match the thick client
feel and robustness. I say thick client feel because I am talking about the
model Lukas' company has built where there is essentially a client that
knows how to render screen layouts sent dynamically from the i5. I don't
advocate putting business logic in thick client apps.
If you want to debate browser vs. thick, please review the archives (I
believe I debated with Joe Pluta) and let me know your thoughts. I believe
it was slightly before Thanksgiving.
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-nontech-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-nontech-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walden H.
Leverich
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:05 AM
To: Non-Technical Discussion about the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: RE: i5/OS vs. Windows was->RE: i5 Youngsters
because sometimes a "thick client"
_is_ needed (as your software house has found).
I may have missed the reason for "needing" a thick client, but what was
it? The only real cases I can see for thick clients are graphics
performance (games, CAD, photoshop, etc.) and hardware connectivity
(controllers, instruments, etc.)
Anything an ERP-like system is doing should be doable via a browser,
especially if you dictate choice of browser, but even if you don't. I'm
curious where you're gaining from a thick client.
-Walden
midrange.com
