In yesterday’s post about the end of WS-*, I tacked on a throwaway comment about RIA. To wit: “Now, of course, the same cast of characters are manning the ramparts in RIA vs. the Web. I know where Iâ€™d place my bets.” And even though the post was not about RIA, that’s what a number of people took issue with. (Interesting that no one seemed to care about the Ragnarok of web services.) So let me clarify my position on this subject.
- I’m not all that vested in this controversy.
- I have not looked deeply into Apollo/Flex, Siverlight, JavaFX, etc.
- My gut tells me that five years from now HTML, CSS, JS, DOM will be the preferred deployment environment for the Web.
- My main problem with these RIA technologies today is that they are proprietary. My other main problem is this looks like a land grab.
- “RIA vs. the Web” was a poor choice of words. “Proprietary RIA vs ubiquitous standards” might have been better.
- I have no problem with anyone using these RIA solutions, if the technology addresses business requirements
- I admit that they are easier to develop towards than Ajax.
- I sure wish Adobe and MS would try and float all boats and not just their own
That said, Patrick Logan paints an interesting picture that I hadn’t really considered. Rather than viewing Apolloâ€”for exampleâ€”as a proprietary plugin to a browser, view it as yet another Web-capable client with some interesting features. That is Apollo equates more to (a closed source) Firefox+XUL than anything else. I’m cool with that.
Oh, and I just downloaded Apollo (painful registration process), picked an app to run (an RSS reader), received a nice warning that it had unrestricted system access (yikes!), let it install itself locally (???), saw it has yet another look and feel (bother), and renders at near glacial speeds (sadness). Fine. But not for me.
Bottom line: If Apollo and Silverlight work for you? Good on ya. For me, for now, I’m sitting this one out.