4 ms·

"""The real challenge is with enterprise applications that need a rich UI - this is where Flex was a good solution. Saying "just use HTML5" is fine when you ser

"""The real challenge is with enterprise applications that need a rich UI - this is where Flex was a good solution. Saying "just use HTML5" is fine when you serve the consumer space; it's not if you serve enterprises.""" I don't think there is anything that can't be done with HTML5 (the whole stack, I mean), nowadays, and that Flex can do it. Especially since an enterprise can dictate to it's users to use a capable modern browser. There's plenty a full native solution can do that HTML5, but Flex ain't that, and besides being limited it's also not that rich component-wise anyway.

untog 15y ago
I don't think you've got the point- an enterprise can dictate to it's users to use a capable modern browser, but they won't. Mostly because they have other legacy software which requires an old version of IE. Or because they're lazy, but they don't like being confronted with the product of their laziness, so if you tell them to upgrade their browsers then they will go to a different company that'll use something like Flex.
- acdha 15y ago
  Chrome Frame nicely addresses all of these concerns
dextorious 15y ago
Down-vote? By who? Flex fanboys??? It's not like my response is like flame-bait of anything.
- bad_user 15y ago
  I downvoted you, even though I hate Flex. Your first argument is not true. There are things that you can build on top of Flash that you cannot do with HTML5. That list may be shrinking, but this has more to do with Adobe's laziness, rather than the awesome powers of the HTML5 standard that took years to reach a reasonable consensus and even now browsers are struggling to support all of it, with the biggest offender being still IExplorer (surprise). Your second argument ignores the policy of real-life enterprises. These environments suck, but they are a real problem for developers that want to sell software to them. Your third argument also ignores why many people like Flex. Also, this very complaint about being downvoted by Flex fanboys ignores the possibility that you might be wrong in any assertions you've made.
mappu 15y ago
I don't think there is anything that can't be done with HTML5 (the whole stack, I mean), nowadays, and that Flex can do it. Flex can open a direct TCP socket connection. With HTML5, you're stuck with long polling, keep-alives and WebSockets, all of which require HTTP headers and hence can't be used to interface with existing services without a proxy.
- udp 15y ago
  Well, you do (as of Flash Player 9) need a policy server [1] running, so connecting to existing services is still pretty much impossible. [1] http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/socket_policy_files.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/socket_poli...
  - mappu 15y ago
    Mmm, yes. However, the policy server runs on a different port. So you can still use an unmodified ircd, for instance, and connect directly to it from Flash as long as the policy server is running. It's a different way of getting around the security problems, and it's a lot less intrusive than the WebSockets way of sticking an HTTP header in front of the whole thing, which would actually require modifying the server service instead of just running one piece of additional software.

untog 15y ago

I don't think you've got the point- an enterprise can dictate to it's users to use a capable modern browser, but they won't. Mostly because they have other legacy software which requires an old version of IE. Or because they're lazy, but they don't like being confronted with the product of their laziness, so if you tell them to upgrade their browsers then they will go to a different company that'll use something like Flex.

acdha 15y ago
Chrome Frame nicely addresses all of these concerns

dextorious 15y ago

Down-vote? By who? Flex fanboys??? It's not like my response is like flame-bait of anything.

bad_user 15y ago
I downvoted you, even though I hate Flex. Your first argument is not true. There are things that you can build on top of Flash that you cannot do with HTML5. That list may be shrinking, but this has more to do with Adobe's laziness, rather than the awesome powers of the HTML5 standard that took years to reach a reasonable consensus and even now browsers are struggling to support all of it, with the biggest offender being still IExplorer (surprise). Your second argument ignores the policy of real-life enterprises. These environments suck, but they are a real problem for developers that want to sell software to them. Your third argument also ignores why many people like Flex. Also, this very complaint about being downvoted by Flex fanboys ignores the possibility that you might be wrong in any assertions you've made.

mappu 15y ago

I don't think there is anything that can't be done with HTML5 (the whole stack, I mean), nowadays, and that Flex can do it. Flex can open a direct TCP socket connection. With HTML5, you're stuck with long polling, keep-alives and WebSockets, all of which require HTTP headers and hence can't be used to interface with existing services without a proxy.

udp 15y ago
Well, you do (as of Flash Player 9) need a policy server [1] running, so connecting to existing services is still pretty much impossible. [1] http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/socket_policy_files.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/socket_poli...
- mappu 15y ago
  Mmm, yes. However, the policy server runs on a different port. So you can still use an unmodified ircd, for instance, and connect directly to it from Flash as long as the policy server is running. It's a different way of getting around the security problems, and it's a lot less intrusive than the WebSockets way of sticking an HTTP header in front of the whole thing, which would actually require modifying the server service instead of just running one piece of additional software.