Slashdot Mirror


The Future of Rich Internet Applications

Can't Get Enough Ajax writes "While Ajax continues to get most of the attention these days in the space of rich Internet apps, the future 'face' of Web applications may consist of a combination of Ajax and plug-in technologies based on the new Flash development platforms or other plug-in models. Why? The challenges of building and maintaining sophisticated software in Javascript and the lack of support for audio and video are just two reasons that any RIA strategy will involve a mixture of Ajax and one or more technologies like Flex, Laszlo, or others. But while there are significant advantages to the new RIA technologies, there are also important trade-offs including breaking the model of the Web, lack of HTML support, and more. ZDNet's Dion Hinchcliffe has a round-up of the latest generation of RIA technologies, pros and cons of each, and why there is likely a 'war' brewing among them."

32 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. The future is in the Stack by RunFatBoy.net · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While Open Lazlo and other open source client solutions are exciting, I think people generally want a fully integrated, front to backend solution for developing these Rich applications. Sure they provide data binding, but solutions such as Rails that provide server-side functionality to directly manipulate the client side give me a more comfortable feeling.

    I want a full unification of the front and backend. That is why Rails, Turbogears and Cake appear to be more exciting.

    Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ - Fitness for web 2.0.

    1. Re:The future is in the Stack by orb_fan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have to concur.

      While what can be done with Ajax is pretty amazing, the unfortunate truth is that the developer generally has to jump through hoops to get everything working. Simply the lack of stateful information is a major problem. What's needed is another protocol (Application Transfer Protocol?) that would provide state information to the server, true client-server event handling, etc.

    2. Re:The future is in the Stack by Randolpho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes and no.

      Rails, Cake, and Turbogears can't provide the sort of rich interaction that flash/activex/java can, no matter how great their frameworks may be. Why?

      The problem is not the stateless nature of the web as much as it is the medium with which the web is presented. HTML was designed as a document language, for the static display of information. It was never designed for any sort of interactivity other than hyperlinking. Everything else that has come along is a hack on top of a simple static display medium. Even arguably solid frameworks like Rails are nothing more than a hack to provide dynamic interactivity to a system that was designed against another way of doing things.

      If we really want remotely obtained rich interactivity, we need to rethink the medium. We need to drop HTML/Javascript and plugins like activex and flash. We need a new platform designed from the ground up to provide dynamic rich interactivity. That includes both the display medium *and* the means by which it is obtained. XUL was a baby step. The concepts behind XAML seem to go much further -- especially in the display department -- but still relies on stateless HTTP.

      All levels of the stack need fixing, not just server-side. We need more than just hacks.

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    3. Re:The future is in the Stack by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I want a full unification of the front and backend. That is why Rails, Turbogears and Cake appear to be more exciting.

      Sounds like you're talking about ASP.NET and Atlas with Visual Studio ...

    4. Re:The future is in the Stack by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, the statelessness is what makes web applications possible. Lets say you have a web application that serves 100,000 different users during the course of an hour. Depending on the demands of your application, you might be able to support all of them on one server because the server doesn't have ot maintain a connection for each and every user for the entire duration of the session. The server just keeps a small bit of the state stored in a session and moves on to serving the next request. But if everyone has a stateful connection, you start running into trouble with resources. Even if nobody is actually DOING anything on the app, you've got these open connections.

      I dunno, at some point I think we're going to have to ask ourselves if the web/browser is really the best way to get the kind of richness people are expencting from internet applications. By the tiem you add statefulness, better UI toolkits, better event model, etc, you don't really have a "browser" anymore. You just have a virtual machine and you find that you've just reinvented Java applets.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  2. Well, at least he mentions by overshoot · · Score: 2, Insightful
    the fact that AJAX (and XUL, actually, but never mind) are searchable. It's the first time in quite a while that an "RIA" author got past the gee-whiz eye candy to deal with usability issues.

    Of course, none of them want to deal with the disabled-accessability part, despite a recent Court decision that's going to make this kind of stuff a very low priority for a long time.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  3. Well in my opinion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    the tag should be enough for anybody.

    B.G.

    1. Re:Well in my opinion, by jizziknight · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget the tag. Those things are all the rage.

      --
      Everything I say is a lie. Except that... and that... and that, and that, and that, and that... and that.
  4. Telcos have been doing this for years. by BrookHarty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ive been running applications people access on their cell phones (or blackberries) for years.

    Its been common to run a backend server (tomcat/apache/oracle/Java) and use the phone as the frontend, and allow webaccess for easier changes.

    AJAX is free, easy to use, and people are using it now. Not even going into first revisions of software and bugs that are associated with new software, or licensing fees.

    That Adobe flex uses coldfusion, we stopped using that and migrated to Tomcat.

    1. Re:Telcos have been doing this for years. by siamesepurr771 · · Score: 2, Informative
      AJAX is free, easy to use, and people are using it now.

      Flex is free (the compiler), ease of use is a subjective measure, and people are using Flex now too.

      That Adobe flex uses coldfusion, we stopped using that and migrated to Tomcat.

      Negative. Flex has no reliance on ColdFusion. There are numerous ways for Flex (front-end) to talk to the server (back-end), ColdFusion being ONE of the ways. It can also talk to Java via Tomcat. For that matter, I can run ColdFusion ON Tomcat.

      Note that I've never written a Flex app - I state facts, not biases.
  5. Prediction.... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I predict if the WPF/E team pulls off what they are doing to bring WPF 2D applications to all browsers and platforms it could be the next generation of Rich Web Applications.

    Unlike ActiveX and other things from MS in the past, WPF/E is very secure, easy to deploy, and brings a new level of functionality that surpasses JAVA/Flash/AJAX.

    It will be a few years off, but it has potential to bring an XML based applicaiton model to the web where others have failed.

    (Part of the reason behind this prediction is that WPF/E is far easier to develop applications for than JAVA/Flash/AJAX... So in a weird way, it will be like the VB of the early 90s and less 'technical' people will be able to write rather rich web applications easily.)

    1. Re:Prediction.... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's what I don't get about XAML and such: it's really just the Microsoft alternative to XUL and SVG+SMIL. Both of which have an excellent implementation that by most current estimates is used by about 10% of the surfers out there (I mean, of course, Firefox).

      Well, a lot of people go this route in thinking, but if you take the time to look at XAML and its capabilities, you will easily find that 80% of things it is doing or can do are not supported with the technologies you mention.

      XAML is not only presentation, but handles every thing from events and hit testing to virtually every type of media. It bridges what you see and and what you can do.

      One simple example is some of the graphic abilities of XAML is that can display very complex vector based images that surpass GDI+ or OSX's Display Acrobat. In fact, some of the image presentation abilities built in are on par with something you would normally see in Adobe Illustrator or CorelDraw. (Blends, transparency, effects, etc.. - And they are all extensible as well, so they are not even a locked set.)

      I know WPF/E in the first release is not going to target 3D, but in response to your view of the other technologies, WPF/XAML does some really impressive things again with its ability to simply display 3D scenes, that are not only nice looking, but fully interactive UI controls as well. (Imagine a RichTextBox on the side of a Cube Spinning with Buttons on each side of the cube that are clickable.)

      Not only is this beyond the 'display' capabilities of the technologies you mention, but also surpasses anything out there short of writing an OpenGL or DirectX application. Yet, a begining programmer can write a 'few' lines of XAML that does all of this that is actually easier than making a VB 2.0 Form and throwing controls on it.

      This ease of programming is where it is as easy as early VB, and yet will do things that are beyond what many developers are even seeing as possible ways to create applications.

      I consider myself half-way versed in WPF stuff, but everytime I look at aspects of it, I find numerous new ways of thinking in creating applications that JUST ARE NOT possible on any other platform and it also reinforces why MS could not just take SVG or other standards and bastardize them in order to achieve what they are with XAML.

      In early previews of XAML concepts I was a lot like you and thought, why not just use SVG, but after seeing how much MS would of had to chop up and turn SVG into what XAML does, I'm actually glad they left SVG alone.

  6. Re:Flash failed by kylner · · Score: 4, Informative

    Try Flex Builder 2. It's a much better Flash IDE for application development than Flash 8 is.

    Flash 8 strikes me as more for content and multimedia development. Flex, on the other hand, is geared towards web developers for web applications.

    We've started using it here at work for some smaller scale applications and really enjoy working in it. It's consistent, stable, and you can put together some really kick ass apps with it.

  7. The best thing about AJAX by also-rr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is that it's becomming less of a end and more of a means, and an almost invisible means at that (no stupid plugins!).

    I turned on free tagging on my website to set up categories (for use with Drupal Views to get a view-content-by-category system) and all of a sudden noticed that the tag input box had a find as you type feature to match against existing tags/categories.

    Highly useful, very unobtrusive and just a regualar part of the system getting on with it's job with a gracefull fallback if client side scripting isn't available. 10/10.

  8. Dump Flash by Perp+Atuitie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Adobe's inability/uninterest in keeping Flash truly cross-platform should be a splash of cold water for folks who see it as part of a new Web generation. Adobe has proven for once and for all that using proprietary, closed tech in Web standards is a great way to cut your own throat. The coming of new demands on the Web offers a golden opportunity to get it right this time and make sure everything there is available to everybody, on any platform. Here's hoping that consideration drives the next wave of development.

  9. What I REALLY do not understand about the web 2.0 by sploxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... is why they are using the essentially useless HTML/HTTP stack with all the addtional layers (JS, AJAX, flash etc.) at all.

    There are cross-platform thin-client network solutions like VNC or Nomachine's NX. They do exactly what the web x.0 wants to do, they do it fast and they do it without all the bloat and packing/unpacking of (essentially very simple) data. ... and you can use your favourite GUI toolkit to build applications.

    Do not bring up the bandwidth argument before looking at NX first. It runs over really small links.

    I also do not think that it allows additional security breaches in principle, as a web browser with all the additional plug-ins is also similar to a very high-level shell to a remote server.

  10. Save Applets by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wish Webpage applets, whether Java, Flash, Javascript or other AJAX or just clientside execution objects, would all let me install them, rather than being bound to their page. Not just for easy access, rather than bookmarking their host page (which too often requires surfing several pages to build state). Also so I can combine them into single collected UIs. I want my own page with my banking client and a few shopping clients. And I want to be able to grant local access to a sandbox DB of my own data, like history and account info, that doesn't allow access to my other data, like other accounts.

    If we could drag applets to our toolbars for local installation, rather than trapping them in their website context, they'd be a lot more useable. Hopefully this early stage of their development will incorporate that now/soon, rather than later when retrofitting and incompatibility will make problems last forever.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  11. Stuff like that oftens break with complexity by cruachan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having been around for IT for a while (20 years) and see quite a few revolutions come and go my sceptiscm with these kind of environments is that although the demo apps always look really good, the trouble comes when you take them out for a stroll in the real world and invariably you soon hit some sort of limitation on implementing something outside what the app was designed to do because the app hasn't been created with sufficient scalability or flexibility in mind. This is easily recognised when you brand-new tool whizzes through the basics as promised in a fraction of the time you would spend hand-coding, but then you loose all that time and more trying to code around the limitations when the going gets tough. Good mature development environments degrade gracefully with increasing size and complexity, poor and often new ones tend to have an asymptotic curve hidding in the undergrowth.

    This isn't to say that Web 2.0 isn't wonderful. I'm doing a lot of contracts at the moment recoding old systems into browser-based ones and AJAX and partners are a joy to work with. My workbench at present is a mix of PHP using TinyButStrong http://www.tinybutstrong.com/ templates, AJAX using the xajax framework http://www.xajaxproject.org/, as much CSS 2.x as I can deploy that doesn't break on all common browsers, and whatever javascript widgets that meet the needs.

    I can't recommend the two core tools in here highly enough - xajax is really nicely designed and I've only found one bug in it so far (when running a window modal), tiny-but-strong is even better - if you do any coding with PHP and havn't found this yet then you are missing the best templating system yet devised.

  12. Some quick insights and clarifications by rtilghman · · Score: 5, Informative

    A quick response/overview from someone who is actually working with more or less all of these technologies.

    The AJAX vs. Proprietary Debate
    Isn't really a debate, which the article kind of notes but doesn't really state. AJAX doesn't compete directly with any of these tools... Asynchronous Javascript and XML is a data delivery mechanism, NOT a presentation layer (if I hear one more person use AJAX to refer to DHTML I'm gonna scream). Flex, Lazlo, Nexaweb, etc. have aspects that compete with AJAX (Real-time Push in Flex/Flash being one that competes and bests AJAX), but drawing them in parallel is misleading. With SVG more or less dead in the water (yeah, AdobeMacromedia doesn't have much of an interest in further developing an OSS competitor to Flex) and no SVG support for IE 7.0, there is no viable presentation component for AJAX to make this argument viable.

    What the article gets right is that future application solutions are a combo approach that leverage a number of different technologies. For example, portals leverage AJAX/DHTML where possible to reduce page refreshes and increase basic interactive behavior (maybe with a framework to do the heavy lifting, though that has its own drawbacks) and something like Flex to supply visualization tools and whiz-bang interactive components on a more selection "superportlet" basis.

    Cost Effectiveness of Proprietary Solutions
    This is right on the money and a BIG reason to favor things like Flex. You'll actually spend more money developing and debugging tools in javascript and html than you will implementing with a robust end to end solution like Flex. From a UE perspective you're married to certain interactive behaviors the components you leverage (Flex isn't very good at exposing the underpinnings, read "Gold Support" here), but you get the benefit of tested methods and basic patterns that are generally at least "acceptable" from a usability perspective.

    Java for Visualization
    God help us all. I went there once on a trip... lost my granny, my dog got run over, and I came back with only 8 fingers.

    Plug-in Limitations of Approach
    Here we're mostly talking about Flash/Flex. I did an analysis not too long ago when I led a project doing a Flex 1.5 implementation (which sucked btw... don't even consider 1.5, not that Adobe would sell you on it anyway). What it comes down to is that Flash 9.0, which is the latest plug-in required to drive Flex 2.0, is at the beginning of its adoption, making this argument somewhat ligitimate. However, typical adoption patterns are a STEEP yield curve... you get to around 80%-85% within a year, get the next 10%-15% shortly thereafter (4-6 months), and pin down the final %5 over the next 5 years. Flickr has a good graphic to illustrate this.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/mannu/148867953/

    The Flash 9.0 plug-in came out a couple months ago. What this means is that if you were to start developing an application now you'd likely launch with 80% adoption. So is it REALLY an issue right now? No, not unless you're developing a very targeted application on a very short timline. Additionally its worth noting that the generally plug-in updating architecture has improved dramatically after 6.0, so most users are now able to seamlessly update their players when prompted.

    Basically I would say this is a legitimate concern if you're audience profile/segmentation indicates very old hardware/software with virtually no technically ability (and I mean NONE here, even more than a web neophyte) then you may need to reconsider your approach.

    Application Accessibility
    This subject is left only partially discussed, and its the real 800lb gorilla in the room. Last week a US court handed down a decision against Target.com (it was on Slashdot). The gist is that Target was found to be inviolation of the ADA for their use of non-accessible content formats in their web site. This was the first t

    1. Re:Some quick insights and clarifications by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Java for Visualization
      God help us all. I went there once on a trip... lost my granny, my dog got run over, and I came back with only 8 fingers.

      That's what happens when you are not prepared for travel!

      How good are you Java programming skills? What were your expectations? Have you tried WebStart?

      I think Java still has a place for specialized rich clients. I have recently released a Java3D scientific visualization application that uses WebStart. It automatically downloads all the Java3D libraries it needs and caches them on the user's machine, then it is able to use native OpenGL drivers. All the user has to do is to click on the JNLP link in the browser. The application works on Windows, Linux and Mac with with all the popular browsers. I am not saying it was trivial to write it but it can be done, one just needs to know Java at more than the beginner level. Flash/JavaScript/SVG would not have worked for what I needed to do.

      Will we see major web portals using Java applications as their interface? - Probably not. But that doesn't mean Java is dead and Ajax is a panacea for all the Internet problems.

  13. SVG by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    HTML was designed as a document language, for the static display of information. It was never designed for any sort of interactivity other than hyperlinking.

    SVG is designed to fix that. It is an open standard, it looks promising but unfortunately browser support isn't quite there yet...

    1. Re:SVG by TheUnknownCoder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not that it's not quite there yet. Native browser support for SVG is non-existing. However, you can download plug-ins to view SVG. And being a W3C Recommendation, Netscape and IE are promising future browser support for SVG, and with browser support, the plug-in will eventually be phased out. The main problem with SVG for the moment is that hardly anyone uses it.

      One sweet duo is SVG + Ajax, that can vastly improve the interface with the end-user, without eating up a lot of bandwidth and most importantly, can be easily implemented so that the browser gracefully presents an downgraded version of the page if one is not supported...

      Give it all to the ones that can handle it, but degrade gracefully if one cannot handle it all. That is (or should be) the future of the web.

      --
      Uncopyrightable: The longest word you can write without repeating a letter.
    2. Re:SVG by Jerf · · Score: 2, Interesting
      SVG is designed to fix that.
      Not from what I can see. SVG is basically as designed for static display of information as HTML now is. The same "hack" for dynamism is used for both, a Javascript-exposed DOM (or DOM exposed to some other language), and the same basic set of events are available to both.

      From what I can see, it really wouldn't take a hell of a lot of work to merge XHTML and SVG into one specification with a richer layout model than XHTML currently has.

      SVG gets you no new interactivity, just the ability to better display vector graphics. Nothing to sneeze at, but current SVG-browser apps are still going to use AJAX or whatever the HTML portion of the website is using for interactivity.

      I agree with the grandparent that the whole stack needs fixing, but the most broken part right now is the stateless HTTP. All we need is for a browser to step up and offer a true, full socket object. Once people have settled into that, we can figure out how to make it more convenient, if there's even an obvious consensus.

      If I could go back in time and choose between the XMLHttpRequest object or a Socket object, I'd take the latter. It's what people really want, they just don't really realize it yet.

      Yes, it causes some new security problems, but ultimately, not really new ones; just allowing XMLHttpRequest at all really covered most of the security problems. (You'd certainly want to block the socket just to the originating server, though.)
  14. Re:No future! by wildBoar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The web wasn't designed for applications. FULL STOP. The fact that apps run on the web at all is a testament to the sheer stubborness of developers.

  15. Re:Flash failed by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can put together an open source development toolkit for Flash development using the MTASC compiler. We use it for ActionStep development and it works great; it cut our compile time dramatically and can easily be used inside TextMate. Great stuff.

    And for the language aficionados among you, MTASC itself is written in Ocaml. News for nerds...

  16. The answer is WebStart by drgonzo59 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Java's WebStart solves this exact problem. We are not talking about Applets. These are more like full Java applications that the user can launch just by clicking on a link in the browser. The applications then load along with any necessary libraries and are cached on the users' computer. Optionally the user can even include it in the Start/Gnome/KDE menu.

    I wrote a quantum computing 3D visualization program in Java3D. The user can just click on the link in the browser and Java3D native libraries will be automatically downloaded and installed on the users' machine (of course after asking the user for permissions to do it) after that my application can use the native OpenGL drivers for fast 3D graphics. So it is both an Internet application (although it presently doesn't talk to a server in real time but it would also be possible) and it takes advantage of the fast native OpenGL graphics and the rich Swing GUI.

  17. Re:Flash failed by draos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Take a look at content that's geared towards the Toddler to preTeen age group. Its full of flash and shockwave content. Flash is filling a niche to deliver tv/video game style content to the worlds young children. My kids even have a large number of game/applications that use flash on the desktop to deliver content.

    As far as flash studio sucking, I couldn't agree more, but then again I'm a J2EE programmer. My artist friends think it rocks. Again its all about knowing your audience.

  18. Re:What I REALLY do not understand about the web 2 by jrumney · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are cross-platform thin-client network solutions like VNC or Nomachine's NX. They do exactly what the web x.0 wants to do, they do it fast and they do it without all the bloat and packing/unpacking of (essentially very simple) data.

    You've got it backwards. VNC and the like send bitmaps across the wire. Bitmaps, even with compression, are more bloated and take more packing and unpacking than simple data. Other reasons to prefer AJAX, Flex, Laszlo, Altio, Nexaweb or other similar frameworks rather than terminal server type products are:

    • Responsiveness - each mouse click or keystroke and pixel draw does not have to travel the network.
    • Scalability - the client is doing all the UI work, the server only needs to handle serving and saving the data
    • Ubiquity - web browsers are everywhere, Flash and Java plugins are nearly everywhere. VNC clients are confined to the IT department's desktops.
    • Firewalls - most firewalls will let you through on port 80. Many companies clamp down on port 5301 (or whatever)

    Also, the article gets it wrong when it states that these frameworks have suddenly started appearing in the last year since AJAX became popular. Aside from Flex, the products I've named above date back to around 2000. They're becoming more visible now that people are starting to see the possibilities of RIAs, but the 6+ year history behind some of these products means they're already stable, quality frameworks with good developer support.

  19. Re:What I REALLY do not understand about the web 2 by JoPapaEd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You should check out the discussion going on at ReadWriteWeb. Ebrahim Ezzy's post is interesting, as are the comments. There's also more followup from industry as they bring Web 2.0 products to market. SharpCast, TeamDirection and x-port. Hopefully with such interesting ideas, Web 2.0 won't implode like Web 1.0 did.

  20. Re:Event Streaming to Browsers by Unnngh! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting, but you can already do this with or without the xmlhttprequest object. The technique is old, it's called slow load or comet. Basically you open a connection to the server, and have the server sit on it until it has something to send you. As soon as it sends its reply, that connection terminates and fires off a new one, continuing the cycle. Real-time feedback between client and server, without the need to poll or eat up bandwidth. I created a proof of concept of this using ajax here. You can build a full-fledged application like this with very low latency that looks just like a regular socket-using network app, in a web browser. The code in this posting has been revised, you need to spawn the thread off of the web server's hands to the CLR in this instance so as not to tie up web requests, and you can probably just do a thread.suspend and reawaken it instead of looping on the server, but it gets the idea across...

  21. Article misses the Point by digital_ichi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One thing that should be discussed when talking about the "The coming RIA wars..." (That have been going on for almost 5 years) are the benefits and limitation of the underly "VM" that the technologies are built on. For any given application one VM technology made be best suited for the application requirements. A framework can make it easy to use the VM and smooth the rough edges, add features but the true benefits and limitation come from the VM itself.

    Currently there are four different VM technologies people use to build RIA applications (in no particalur order).

    • 1.) Java
    • 2.) .NET
    • 3.) Flash
    • 4.) Browser / DHTML / Javascript

    The article http://ajax.sys-con.com/read/232046.htm provide a good breakdown of the VMs.
  22. Re:Event Streaming to Browsers by Fudgie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using Juggernaut for Rails you can also achieve this with a small Flash applet acting as a bridge. Have a look at http://www.clockingit.com/comet.html for a small screencast demonstrating how this can work.