Re: Would Any Developers Use This?
Re: Would Any Developers Use This?
- Subject: Re: Would Any Developers Use This?
- From: Chris Boot <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:07:15 +0200
Hi,
>
> The whole thing sounds pretty nice, however I'd go framework-only, since I
>
> don't see any need for a central application.
>
>
I can see both sides: having a framework lets your app look after itself.
>
On the other hand if people have a laptop with 2 locations, 1 fast and 1
>
slow connection, then if updating is always the app's responsibility,
>
they have to fire up every app when they log on in the fast connection
>
location. If there was a central service then you only have to launch /
>
script one thing and let it worry. Then again, a central app / service
>
could be used maliciously (like when all the Win98 users were worried
>
that MS was uploading all their info to some bigbrother.microsoft.com
>
machine).
Having the framework and the app base their information from a common
property list file in the application would remedy your first problem.
One reason for which the whole thing would be open source is so that people
can audit it and whatever. Also, the scheme I use would only have to get
files from the server and not send any personal information across at all
(HTTP GET only, with no path parameters whatsoever). If only there was a
universal way of saying "don't worry, really" to end users...
>
Furthermore if all functionality is within the app, and the functionality
>
changes (eg. supporting name / passwords / serial numbers before
>
downloading) then all app developers using the technology need to update
>
their app to incorporate the new features (assuming they're all
>
compulsory features). If it was handled by some central service app, it
>
could update itself and then everyone's happy again.
I would assume that the framework version could be built in such a way that
it could be updated by some other application which bundles it without
breaking other applications which were linked with older versions (i.e.
think BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE). We would have to cover as much as possible in
the first version, but this can be done by putting all of our minds
together. Obviously, the updater app would use the framework and update
itself and the framework every so often.
--
Chris Boot
email@hidden
#define QUESTION ((2b) || (!2b))