Gregg, > Jan seemed to give up on the last go round. Could you please put statements like this into context (as I do not agree with you on the Invoke issue).
When/How did I give up? And what does that mean? >I find it very disheartening that so much disinformation is being spread about >to try and pump up HTTP as "the only uniform API on the internet" >implementation. Could you please be a little more sensible with the usage of words such as 'disinformation'? I feel like you are saying that I am spreading disinformation (which is maybe not exactly what you wanted to say). Jan > > > It's the main reason we don't see those systems on the Internet. > >But we do have these systems on the internet. I use them on the internet all >the time! It seems that what you consider the internet is "the web". What I >consider the internet is TCP/IP networking. > >The main reason why we don't "see those systems" on the internet is because >they >don't have to be "seen on the internet" to be useful. Exposing the >transport/transfer technolgy behind an API as "the interface" is pretty much >the >end of extensibility of the implementation. > >This is why mobile code is so important! > > > *ALL* Internet based systems have standardized operations. This is > > not a coincidence. > >I think that you are using some pretty broad terms that really don't fit into >the mold you are pressing them. The "Internet" is based on TCP/IP, plain and >simple. HTTP is but one application protocol that rides on top. It is the >protocol that web browsers are using as their primary interface. It's not the >only solution, and the browser is not the only useful client. > >I hear over and over in different places about people moving away from the >browser and to fat-clients because of the fact that the browser can not be >depended on to "work correctly". There are versioning issues, document >implementation issues and simply broken code issues. There's a lot of >potential >in the browser. However, because there are multiple implementations with >multitudes of problems, anything beyond simple text and forms and downloading >stuff, is risky at best. > >The whole GWT business demonstrates how frustrating Google has found it to be. >It won't surprise me to see Google creating a new "client" that just downloads >and runs GWT code directly. > >Gregg Wonderly > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
