geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sonnek, Ryan" <Ryan.Son...@bpc.com>
Subject RE: new console-swing team
Date Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:58:31 GMT
I always that that JSF was going to be THE way to develop client and server
side layouts, but I have yet to see how it can work with the client side.  I
think that the JSR shyed away from tackling this behavior in order to get it
out the door, but I do hope that it is still on the table and being
considered.

I've never heard of JSR 168, but it is VERY needed for the community to come
up with some kind of standard way to plugin to IDE's.  

So, based on what has been brought up so far, the console has several
different facets, and I think that ALL of them have the importance and
value.  It could be defined that the console would be broken up into:
console-common (abstracted common functionality for all clients)
console-jws (java webstart that would most likely be swing, but possibly
something else)
console-elicpse (eclipse plugin seeking to provide functionality similar to
the jbossIDE plugin)
console-netbeans (netbeans plugin to work with the geronimo server)

I think I'll try to post this on the wiki sometime tonight.

-----Original Message-----
From: Juan Albisu [mailto:juanmi@juanalbisu.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 1:48 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: new console-swing team


I prefer java Webstar: I've used a lot and it's really cool

Swing: where you can do everything and make it look easy

I Think there are two "must" plugs to be done: Netbeans and Eclipse.

I remember the "JSR 168 A Standar Extension API for IDE". But I haven't 
seen anything from them



At 10:38 21/11/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Sonnek, Ryan wrote:
>
>>[...] Any opinions on applet vs. webstart?
>
>WebStart, hands down. Developing an applet that is *truely* cross 
>platform
>involves a great deal of overhead for testing and results in code that 
>has, IMHO, an unacceptable amount of special cases to deal with the 
>irregularities specific to certain OS x OS version x browser x browser 
>version combinations. WebStart, on the other hand, provides a more 
>standard execution environment (plus secure system services that simply 
>aren't available to applets). Further, the fact that WebStart will cache 
>byte code on the client means that the user is spared the pain of 
>downloading an applet everytime they want to run the console. If there 
>exists a compelling reason to use an applet over WebStart, I have yet to 
>see it and would welcome the information.
>
>
>Cheers,
>Elias
>
>P.S. WebStart, no contest.  :-)

Mime
View raw message