It sounds like JSON and ExtJS may be productive if you have appropriate tooling;
a composer; an object explorer; a way to enter or capture & store UI component
definitions in a database to generate screens at runtime. But I don't
understand the comparison with CGIDEV2. Did you actually mean to compare JSON &
ExtJS to CGIDEV2? Or did you rather mean to compare it with HTML templates? Or
were you really comparing page-at-a-time interfaces vs. using AJAX to update
page elements?
-Nathan
----- Original Message ----
From: Aaron Bartell <aaronbartell@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 12:42:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Sencha Touch
Hi Nathan,
I fully agree that JSON and ExtJS syntax is messy. The JSON
messy-ness is resolve by having JSON composer/parser on both ends (in
ExtJS and RPG), and the Firebug plugin for Firefox has a nice JSON
renderer that I use for debugging.
The ExtJS syntax I am still working on. I hope to eventually store
the properties of a screen/panel in a DB2 table and have "render kits"
that take the DB2 data and render it to a particular UI framework
(i.e. ExtJS, SenchaTouch, jQTouch, Android, iPad, etc).
In the end though, I would still argue that even with the messy ExtJS
syntax it is much easier/quicker for me to code an application than
CGIDEV2. After awhile you get good at the syntax - it's just
Javascript arrays.
midrange.com
