PreviousNext…

That’s rich

Today I spent some time testing the latest version of one of our big internal applications. It was interesting (to a point… who likes testing?!?) for me, because I did some work on v1.00 of this app a few years back, both here and in Dallas. Something suddenly clicked as I was playing with the system: this new-fangled rich client we’ve all been banging on about is going to be a God-send for applications like the one I was testing. Why? Because the Eclipse foundation for the client means we get a proper API for our user interfaces At long last!

Two to three years ago, when I was involved in coding the Big Thing, we had no end of trouble getting the UI to do what we wanted. Notes 5.0.5 was never that co-operative to start with, and the front-end control one has over nested framesets, views and documents — even now in 6.5 — isn’t too great. So, here’s to hoping that the rich client changes that forever, assuming it has the full functionality of the current Notes client.

That would be splendid.

Comments

  1. a-freakin-men brother!

    we've had exactly the same kinds of problems, and i've been looking forward to the new rich client for the same reason!

    :-)jonvon#
  2. So, looks like we should have some control over the UI. Good good. BUT HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO THE REST? The mind boggles. Are they committed to reproducing current client functionality — albeit in the long-term? Hmmm…

    I can see how Lotusscript could take a dive in favour of the Java wrappers, and that’s OK by me, but what about @formula? Are Lotus engineers going to be taking their (relatively) newly-rejigged formula engine and re-creating it in Java? Hmmm…Ben Poole#

  3. Off topic… but let me know the next time you come to Dallas.Joseph Pollone#
  4. Will do ;-)Ben Poole#

Comments on this post are now closed.

About

I’m a software architect / developer / general IT wrangler specialising in web, mobile web and middleware using things like node.js, Java, C#, PHP, HTML5 and more.

Best described as a simpleton, but kindly. You can read more here.

";