feedBehind the stonewall
May 22, 2007 | 
co.mments
Pete Lacey: "I would develop Apollo applications if, and only if, my application was deployed inside the firewall and I had a set-in-stone requirement that could not be met by a browser-based app. But, again, that’s just me. YMMV."
For that problem space (corporate desktops), I still agree in spirit with Robert Sayre when he said "deploy your corporate or vertical apps on XUL".. With the other sane option being Eclipse (MSFT revving their client platforms every few years not being a good thing).
The real question is, what requirement cannot be met by a browser based app, *especially* if you include XUL? I mean fundamentally can't be met or utterly pointless, not just "difficult" (difficult is merely motivation). The benchmark used to be a word processor, now it seems to be Photoshop.
May 22, 2007 08:56 PM
Comments
The problem is not "difficulty", it's "complexity". Building a XUL app is a minefield of wasteful complexity that nobody in their right mind would bring upon themselves.
s/XUL/XForms
What XUL lacks in an expressive binding mechanism, XForms more than makes up with via XPath.
Comments broken?
Post a comment
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.dehora.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2090