Client definitions

re: Client definitions

Alex — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:18:00 GMT

Very nice summary of the differences. I might use this on the next sit down over initial specs with a customer. However, one quibble I have is with some of the comments regarding thin clients. I am primarily a web-developer, so obviously my point of view is skewed, however, some comments:

1) thin clients can indeed be made to be offline capable. I have actually developed just such type apps. Mostly they involved data downloaded to the client as an XML doc and then synched with the server when they go back online. This requires some user interaction, but the capability is there.

2) I agree with the complexity angle - any web app that really provides a decent user interface requires quite a lot of client-side coding. However, there are so many third parties coming out with asp.net enabled widgets (see someone like Telerik or ComponentArt) that the need for heavy client coding is indeed reduced greatly. A subtext to that is heavy duty web apps will put a strain on the computer (Flash apps can be especially vicious but they provide the best user interface that most closely mimics smart apps). Because browsers were not really built to be efficient high-end guis, they can sometimes get clobbered by poorly written client side code. New developments in asp 2.0 will only lessen the divide between web clients and rich/smart clients.

One point you also missed - smart/rich clients are windows only systems. A web app easily expands to almost any platform with a modern browser.

re: Client definitions

JackG — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:11:00 GMT

Hi Alex,
Good questions.
Re; 1) It is true that Thin Clients may offer offline services. As an example, IE offers some offline functionality. It is also possible to build a Thin Client application that may persist data to a local store. As you point out, considerations need to be made for handling the appropriate permissions and user interactions. However, the Thin Client model is not designed to naturally support this functionality. When you stray from the original target of the Web application model into the rich desktop application environment, you are adding functionality that was not intended to be supported. Vendors have continued to add support for richer thin client applications as the Web has become a prevalent network infrastructure. This was not the intended model of thin client application hosting. I believe the pendulum had swung to the extreme toward web development and that the natural tendency of the pendulum to seek equilibrium is now coming to pass.

I can site many examples in my career where we created a web application that had desktop/thick client functionality. The complexity, cost of development, maintainability, and attempt to get feature parity with a Rich/Smart client application are all issues to seriously consider. I carefully factor into my application design decisions which paradigm meets the functionality required for the application that needs to be developed.

Re; 2) As you mention with widgets, ActiveX controls, etc.. You may achieve a richer user experience, but imho this is not the design point of Thin Clients application but rather an attempt to get a richer experience into an environment that was not intended for this richer scenario. I am a big ASP.net fan as ASP certainly adds functionality but it also adds development complexity.

Re; Windows only) There is nothing specific in the definition that locks you into Windows. It could be argued that Windows and the Microsoft tools and infrastructure built upon the O/S provide a robust environment for Rich application development.

The Browser issue is something else of interest. I have debated many times the platform agnostic nature of Web applications. It is true that the ability for Web applications to be available to a larger potential audience that is not bound to a specific vendors O/S is a positive and driving factor when determining how the application should be designed. But if you intend to be ubiquitous you will need to target the lowest common denominator in Browser functionality (Mozilla, IE, Opera, Netscape, etc..) which will limit your rich user experience, or at the vary least add to your complexity of conditional code needed to support many targets. I would also add that most of these browsers are going to run on client work stations where CPU, hard disk, and memory are all available and should be utilized by the application developer.

Software as a Service (SaaS) and Rich Internet Applications (RIA)

Jack Gudenkauf (JackG) WebLog — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:14:28 GMT

I have been spending the last few months doing research on ISV/VAR/SI applications.
As part of my research,...

thin client

shiva — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:23:07 GMT

i want to develop thin client application, i have to load all my win user controls in IE , and my controls will access data from remote database. For example, the datagrid will fetch data from remote database, when running in winform appllication it is working fine, but the same controls when loading in IE (thick client), it is throwing sql exception.

My question is how to connect to remote sqlserver from thick client. Can any one clarify me.

re: Client definitions

JackG — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:16:36 GMT

Shiva, Just for clarity, a Winform application is a Thick Client application and a Web Applications (in IE) is a thin client appplication.
There are a number of differences between the 2 types of applications and you have given a scenerio that shows this.
Internet applications have security requirements that by default do not allow System resource access, such as file system access, etc..
Your data access question is one that is common and also one in which web services were created. There are ways to get your scenerio needs met within a Web application through security settings, using other controls, etc.. Winform controls are not meant to be fully supported outside of thier environment with which they were created (such as IE).
ActiveX controls were a close approximation to what you are asking for, but the overhead of signing these controls, deploying, installing/registering them, etc.. caused some of the lack of adoption and ubiquity.
Your question is better answered by the IE team http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/

Jack Gudenkauf JackG WebLog Client definitions | Green Tea Fat Burner

Jack Gudenkauf JackG WebLog Client definitions | Green Tea Fat Burner — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:57:15 GMT

PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=4572

Jack Gudenkauf JackG WebLog Client definitions | Toe Nail Fungus

Jack Gudenkauf JackG WebLog Client definitions | Toe Nail Fungus — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:20:00 GMT

PingBack from http://toenailfungusite.info/story.php?id=3021