You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to kerby@directory.apache.org by "Zheng, Kai" <ka...@intel.com> on 2015/07/06 10:30:59 UTC
RE: [Studio] Adding a org.apache.directory.studio.common.ui.dialogs
package in common.ui
>> Don't underestimate the cost of developping a decent WebUI using REST, AngularJS and CSS ...
One thing to note is that we would need to support REST for the backend anyway, to support remote kadmin operations. This isn't regardless of what UI we're going to come up.
Regards,
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 10:24 PM
To: dev@directory.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Studio] Adding a org.apache.directory.studio.common.ui.dialogs package in common.ui
Le 03/07/15 16:06, Zheng, Kai a écrit :
> Yeah, RAP would be a choice to develop the web UI, my major concern is it may incur too heavy overhead in the server side. I would say in today REST + BootStrap + AngularJS like frontend is more popular. The development is much easier to setup. No worry about JS, CSS stuffs actually in most time.
>
> RCP development incurs some overhead, like the Eclipse runtime stuff, and guys have to learn about the layout, how to draw a table, dialog and so on. The tool has to download and install before to use. I thought Studio is good to have for a LDAP server, because it's complex. A Kerby management console should be much simplified and easier to use, typical web UI should be enough.
Don't underestimate the cost of developping a decent WebUI using REST, AngularJS and CSS. IMHO, the learning curve is way, way higher. And those who pretend to materize those 4 technos are either liars or rare.
When it comes to the runtime overhead, it's totally insignificant, compared to the cost of a roundtrip from a client to the server. And you start the server once, and that's it.
RE: [Studio] Adding a org.apache.directory.studio.common.ui.dialogs
package in common.ui
Posted by "Zheng, Kai" <ka...@intel.com>.
To correct:
This isn't regardless of what UI we're going to come up.
=>
This is regardless of what UI we're going to come up.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zheng, Kai [mailto:kai.zheng@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 4:31 PM
To: kerby@directory.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Studio] Adding a org.apache.directory.studio.common.ui.dialogs package in common.ui
>> Don't underestimate the cost of developping a decent WebUI using REST, AngularJS and CSS ...
One thing to note is that we would need to support REST for the backend anyway, to support remote kadmin operations. This isn't regardless of what UI we're going to come up.
Regards,
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 10:24 PM
To: dev@directory.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Studio] Adding a org.apache.directory.studio.common.ui.dialogs package in common.ui
Le 03/07/15 16:06, Zheng, Kai a écrit :
> Yeah, RAP would be a choice to develop the web UI, my major concern is it may incur too heavy overhead in the server side. I would say in today REST + BootStrap + AngularJS like frontend is more popular. The development is much easier to setup. No worry about JS, CSS stuffs actually in most time.
>
> RCP development incurs some overhead, like the Eclipse runtime stuff, and guys have to learn about the layout, how to draw a table, dialog and so on. The tool has to download and install before to use. I thought Studio is good to have for a LDAP server, because it's complex. A Kerby management console should be much simplified and easier to use, typical web UI should be enough.
Don't underestimate the cost of developping a decent WebUI using REST, AngularJS and CSS. IMHO, the learning curve is way, way higher. And those who pretend to materize those 4 technos are either liars or rare.
When it comes to the runtime overhead, it's totally insignificant, compared to the cost of a roundtrip from a client to the server. And you start the server once, and that's it.