I suggest you re-read what I said then... because I said it and Mike Chambers has it quoted
"I would kinda expect that you can launch exe passing parameters ( like CLI style or something similar ), talk to dynamic libraries like .dll ( Windows ), .so ( Linux )..." and as I said before I don't know much about Mac's so I don't know what they use for dynamic libraries... dunno if they also use .so... I don't know On 2/3/07, Shannon Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You never said anything about this in your previous email. All you said in your previous email was, basically, that if you couldn't run dll's Apollo was useless. My response was targeted toward that. Even considering your new statements, I still stand by my original opinion that the value is being cross-platform. Just because 80% of business applications are built on a proprietary platform doesn't mean that it's the best idea to continue building on such a limiting platform. Don't get me wrong... Apollo is also a closed platform, but at least it will run on Windows, Mac and Linux. If a company isn't interested in investing in a project that has these potential long-term advantages, then Apollo might not be for them anyway. If a company is interested in sticking with Windows proprietary software, I don't see the advantages of Apollo over, say, VB... Or just sticking with the software they're currently using. Shan Jason Hawryluk wrote: So your saying it's better for a company to re create the wheel then to leverage their existing investments. 80%+ of business applications are specific to windows not leveraging that investment is just stupid. So now if I have a client that wants to leverage Apollo I have to let them know their going to need to dump everything they have built as it's not cross platform, and even though they are a windows platform company they really need cross platform. I had never stated just target win dll's, and I had meant a value proposition for business. Do you honestly think that company is going to look at Apollo and say "sweet now I can target the other 5% of the market. Let's dump everything and start over"? I'm totally missing your logic here. jason -----Message d'origine----- *De :* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@ <flexcoders@> yahoogroups.com]*De la part de* Shannon Hicks *Envoyé :* vendredi 2 février 2007 18:31 *À :* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com *Objet :* Re: [flexcoders] Apollo features The real value of Apollo would be cross-platform applications. I can't run your DLL's on my Mac. If you need DLL's, use VB to build your app, and don't tease me with the false hope of a cross-platform application by building with Apollo and then ruining it with windows-only code. :) Shan Jason Hawryluk wrote: I have to agree here, if we can't extend it with our own dll's then what is the real value proposition for Apollo. I think support for dll's is important (com, managed, other). Allowing us to reuse our existing middle tiers/frameworks, and use Apollo to create engaging user experiences. jason -----Message d'origine----- *De :* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@ <flexcoders@> yahoogroups.com]*De la part de* Jerome Clarke a.k.a sinatosk *Envoyé :* vendredi 2 février 2007 16:54 *À :* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com *Objet :* Re: [flexcoders] Apollo features To be honest... all this talk I've been hearing about Apollo being used as desktop applications using web technologies... I would kinda expect that you can launch exe passing parameters ( like CLI style or something similar ), talk to dynamic libraries like .dll ( Windows ), .so ( Linux )... kinda surprised it doesn't support any of that yet... yet they call it desktop applications... it's more like their own browser in my opinion... I doubt this is how Apollo will be all the way. But if it does... can't say people will move to it quickly while MDM Zinc is there being able to do all of that ( regardless Zinc is free or not ) and WPF/E I had plans to write applications where I can use SQLite, MySQL, GD2, run servers using TCP/IP on specific ports and ip addresses, video codecs like divx, xvid and others... if all I can do is talk to the file system then I may aswell stick with Flex 2... The only use I can see that for is for offline storage applications like the ebay application and Amazon application... Thats what alot of people want to do anyways but thats not the only thing they want to do... but then again I'm assuming quite abit here... I havn't got full info about Apollo... but what I've been hearing about WPF/E compared to Apollo... I'm assuming Apollo can't do some of the things I said above and I'm not interested in WPF/E. As far as I know... only works on Windows but I still watch it to see what people say about it... I like to be cross platform I use Flex 2 alot for the things I'm doing now. I don't think I will be using Apollo as much as I thought I predicted as I do with Flex 2 On 2/2/07, Kevin Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tom Chiverton wrote: > > Does anyone or has read somewhere, if Apollo will allow you to launch > native > > local applications ? > > > As far as I know, Apollo is using webkit, does this include the ability > to run other plugins besides Flash (like Java)? > > If so, can you use one of those other plugins (java, or perhaps a custom > > plugin) to access native dlls and such by communicating from Flash to > Javascript, then to the other plugin in Javascript? > > Kevin N. > >
