Related
I am not new with ExtJS, building apps since ExtJS3, but I am definitely new with ExtJS universal apps.
What I undertand is that, in an universal app, we have to define both classic and modern views separately, in classic and modern subfolders. Doing so, both views can share the same Models, Stores, ...
Does it mean that classic and modern views are completely separated? Is there a way to use a classic view in "modern" mode, I mean when loading application on a phone?
Or should I have to completely duplicate my views, if I want to have the exact same functionnality using the application on a desktop and on a phone?
I already read the Sencha docs, but that part is not really clear for me...
Thanks in advance !
LuD_GRi
When starting a new project, which toolkit should I use?
Question details: We’re currently starting development of a completely new app – initially for desktop, but later we’ll add support for phones. What’s the recommended way of building this type of app that is the most future proof? Should we go for a universal app and create our initial desktop app with the Classic toolkit, or is a Modern toolkit only app the best approach from now on?
We recommend the Modern toolkit for most new projects, but there are several features in the Classic toolkit that would also make it the right choice. The following features are only available in Classic: locking grids, support for IE8 / 9 / 10, and accessibility and support for RTL (Right-to-left) languages. If your application needs these capabilities, then Classic is the way to go.
link
I think you can mix both of these approaches in one case - if supporting older browser versions such as IE8\7\6 is not important to you. Honestly, I have not tried to mix them. and not sure if this will work. I think this is unjustified
Modern toolkit is created not only for mobile devices. This is generally a toolkit aimed at fresh versions of browsers, and free from unnecessary tricks to support things specific to each version.
EDIT:
link2
By design, the classic and modern toolkits target different generations of browsers. If you write an application with both classic and modern user interfaces, the user sees one or the other, depending on the runtime environment. You cannot mix and match view components. But both toolkits do share core features, such as the class system, the data package, the view-controller-viewmodel architecture, etc.
I was a .net based windows application developer and being a web developer now.
For the last couple of years, I tried to follow principles of Specification by example in a project.
On the last project I was involved, our team used WPF with MVVM(Model-View-ViewModel) pattern and I tried SpecFlow for testing. (Well.. the coverage by SpecFlow was very low though cause it was not officially adopted from our team and I couldn't spend enough time on it.)
Now our team started to migrate the existing windows application to a web based application and decided to use cucumber.js as a tool for implementing 'Specification by example'.
When I was trying SpecFlow before, I made all the step definitions to test ViewModel layer instead of View and it was the only way actually. What I'm confused with cucumber.js is that most of examples demonstrate how to test features via web browsers(headless or real ones).
If the features are specifying specific ui behaviors then accessing a DOM element and evaluating its value make sense. However, as far as I learned about Specification by examples, testing under the UI layer is recommended instead of UI elements directly.
It seems like most of modern web applications have layers such as MVC, MVVM(knouckout.js) nowadays. Our web application will use Angularjs and this is my theory.
I guess it is possible to use feature files - which do not state any specific UI controls and behaviors - to test under the skin of UI layer, without relying browser support. That layer would be Model of angularjs, not ui elements.
Is this approach missing something or wrong with cucumber.js?
Please give me some insights and correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks in advance!
Specification by example specifies requirements by giving examples from the point of view of the user. What's more representative of the user: clicking items on a web page, or directly calling code? A user won't be calling methods on your view model, so in my opinion a feature test is a much better way to test expected behaviour.
First I'd like to make it clear, I'm not looking for a "my tech is better than yours" type of post; this is a real case scenario and I have been faced with this decision. With this in mind, let me explain:
We have a WinForms application. It started in the early .NET 1.0 but the first shipping version was using .NET 1.1. There are layers (like BusinessLayer.dll, Datalayer.dll, Framework.DLL, etc.) but at some point during the "long" development cycle of this application, the "presentation" layer (Win Forms) got infected with some code, thus the "separation between the code and the presentation with code behind" is some sort of myth.
Bad practices or whatever, the truth is that the application is there and it works.
Years passed and we had .NET 2.0, we slowly migrated and it mostly worked, had to change a few calls here and there. Last version did the same thing, but for .NET 3.5sp1. We needed some sort of Webservices thing, and decided to use WCF instead. It works fine.
But despite all these .NET upgrades, most of the application's codebase is still the same old rock and roll from 5 years ago. We use Gentle.NET (old and unmaintained now) for our dataobjects (it was a blessing 5 years ago!).
Our presentation layer, the winforms, are "nice looking" since we employ 90% of completely gdi+ custom controls. (whenever possible without having to hack the WinAPi). The application is touch based (i.e.: it makes use of the Ink but it doesn't rely on that), but the buttons, labels, etc, everything is "designed" to be used with a tactile device. (TabletPC or Touchscreen). Of course some users use keyboard/mouse.
With all that in mind, and with all this web2.0 and Internet fuzz (plus Jeff's posts ;) ), we are considering the possibility of rewriting the application but using a web technology.
The idea is obviously bringing more availability for our customers (they can use the system whenever/wherever they want), and less maintenance (we can upgrade and it is an instant upgrade for 'em all), etc. You know, the usual Internet vs WinApp thingy.
The problem is that given that this is the healthcare industry, not all of our customers might be willing to "move" their databases to our server/s, which is acceptable, and would force us to install a webserver/database server in their own servers so they have their own copy. Not a big problem (except we would have to update those manually but that's not an issue, given that we've been updating win32 apps for 5 years now!).
Now, back to the main "question".
The team has little Asp.NET experience, we did program a lot in ASP 2.0 (in 1999/2000) but that was a spaghetti of HTML+VBScript+CSS, so I don't think it counts. After all that experience (the Internet bubble!) we went back to VB6 then C#.NET 1x and you know the rest of the story. We're a small team of C# developers for WinForms. We've acquired some Linq To SQL Experience in our last .NET 3.5 ride, and we liked it. We felt it very natural and very "if we would have had this five years ago…" like.
Given all this, rewriting the application is not a "simple task" (not even if we wanted to do it in the already known C#.NET), it would take time and planning, but we could correct dozens of mistakes and with 5 years of experience working with the application, we now can say that we have a better idea of how the customers would like to use the software and what limitations we created (by ourselves) when we designed the current app.
All that "knowledge" of the application and the way the business works, could be applied to produce a much better application in terms of design and code and usability. Remember in .NET 1.1 we didn't even have generics! ;) (you'll see lots of ArrayList's hanging around here).
As an additional note, we use Crystal Reports (and, as usual, we hate it). We don't think the ink control is a "must" either. The HTML/CSS could be shaped to look the way we want it, although we're aware that HTML is not WinForms (and hence some things cannot be reproduced).
Do you think that planning this in MVC (or WebForms) would be too crazy?
I like the MVC (ruby on rails like) idea (I've never programmed in ruby beyond the basics of the book), so no one in our team is an expert, but we can always learn and read. It mustn't be "rocket science", must it?
I know that this whole question might be a little bit subjective, but would you replace an aging Winforms application with a new ASP/MVC/XXX web application? Do you have experience or have tried (and had success or failed) ?
Any insight in helping use better decide what to do will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
UPDATE: Thanks to all who responded, we'll evaluate whether this is a good move or not, it sure is a hell of work, but I am afraid the the desktop app is getting older (using old net 1.1 hacks) and tho it has been more or less working without problems in Vista and W7, I'm afraid a future update may break it.
Also, lots of "more or less core" parts of the application are exposing some badly designed ideas and we had to hack here and there to accomplish certain tasks. Part inexperience, part lack of 100% knowledge of how the business worked (and Customers not sure what they wanted).
A new application (in any form) would allow us to create a better foundation while retaining all the user knowledge.
But, it's a L O T of work :) So we'll consider all these options here.
As some of you have mentioned, maybe a thinner client and some (ab)use of WCF here and there might be more appropriate.
Once again, thanks to all!
It would be best to ditch all your efforts of reusing the desktop application code when you recreate the web app. Following are the reasons:
Web apps especially asp.net use a different model. For starters note http is stateless. Each time the browser talks to server you have to explicitly send the current content of all the controls on the current page. You would not have used such a model in your Windows application.
To decrease load on the network you want to optimize the size of viewstate and how frequent you make http requests. Again your existing window app does not have any such provisions.
Updating view. You might have different event handlers, threads and what not in your windows application to update the GUI in different scenarios. All of that will need to be replaced. Javascript is a totally different animal.
Security. When using a browser your access to the local disk is highly limited whereas you will take the same for granted in windows application. If there is any code in the windows app that requires local resources, then that is going to be a trouble spot for you.
I would recommend the following:
Verify if your current application has any local disk access requirements (e.g. read/write to local file etc).
As you write the different http modules or handlers, you can try leveraging some of the backend/ business logic part of the existing windows application.
Give some thought to what part of your application can become a web service.
It sounds like the application needs a lot of refactoring to clean it up. If you want to move to a web model, and have maximum reuse you will really need to do that. Before you move to a web model I think you need to understand if it will be possible to replicate your user interface in that model. Is it your unique selling point from a customer perspective? You want decisions like this to be user driven rather than purely technical decisions.
It sounds like your application is the perfect candidate for a thick client application, rather than the lowest common denominator web model.
Some things to consider:
How will the web interface impact the Tablet interaction?
What new customers will having a web version bring you?
Will existing customers abandon your product?
Do you have access to consultants or outside resource with the right skills to mentor you in web technology? If you don't you can rely on StackOverflow or other web resources to help. You need some good mentoring and guidance on the ground with you.
What happens if you start this effort and it takes much longer than you expect? You know the app but don't sound like you know the web. Past experience shows that massive rewrites like this can end in disaster (it never sounds so difficult at the start)
Can you possibly write new features in a web-based version?
Could you move to ClickOnce deployment to make the application easier to deploy to customers. One of the benefits of the web is easier (zero) deployment. Can you get closer to that?
Would it be easier to migrate to WPF and create a browser application with that?
Silverlight or Flex might be better options for creating a rich experience, and may be more approachable for WinForms developers. Is this a possibility?
It seems like your app. is one of those that works best as a desktop app. Though you want your users to be able to access your app. using a browser.
I would suggest refactoring as much as possible so that the GUI gets cleaner and don't have "code".
When you've done this, start developing a asp.net mvc app but keep your desktop app. You should be able to use all layers except the UI layer, making it easier/faster/... Now that mvc exists, I'd say webforms is more about letting non-web devs do web. But you know web, sort of, and you want control so mvc is the way to go.
I'm looking for some arguments to pitch to my boss and fellow developers.
We're currently finishing up the preliminary UI mockups and getting ready to move on to the next phases of development. In the meantime, I've been digging through the depths of the Carbon, Win32, and wxWidgets APIs attempting to make some of the controls have a more native look and feel on the Mac and Windows platforms.
The more I dig into the Win32 and Carbon APIs to implement the things we want in our project's UI, the more antiquated they feel, and the more I'm beginning to think that we should be implementing the project as described in the last paragraph here.
We're using wxWidgets for our current projects. wxWidgets is coming along on the wxCocoa port, but it doesn't look like it's going to be ready for prime-time before we start major development efforts on our new application. On the Windows side of things, it wraps the Win32 API rather than WinForms or WPF (likely due to native vs. managed code).
We're already designing the system with the MVC pattern in mind, thus aside from having to write two native UIs, it should be very doable, and, IMHO, easier to get the desired UI effects using modern APIs such as Cocoa and WPF.
I've been trying to push these points subtly, but the start of major development is coming soon. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to pitch using native UI toolkits in our next application vs sticking with wxWidgets?
Thanks in advance.
Create your core code in Standard C++ and use Objective-C++ with Cocoa to create your user experience on the Mac and C++/CLI plus C# with WPF to create your user experience on Windows. Follow the platform guidelines for the Mac in your Mac version, for Windows in your Windows version, and don't even bother thinking about trying to share user interface code.
One good way to manage this is, instead of just Model-View-Controller, following a Model-Model Controller-View Controller-View architecture. Your Model Controllers are platform-independent and manage the higher-level functionality of your application. (For example, its entire concept of documents, file format, job queues, and so on.) Your View Controllers are platform-dependent and mediate between your Model Controllers and your user experience.
Of course you'll probably also want some platform-dependent code at the model level too; for example to use NSOperation on the Mac and thread pools on Windows to implement job queues. Just create your own lightweight abstractions for that sort of thing.
Actually I think using Qt has become very interesting since it's now LGPL
Every time you add a layer of abstraction, you trade control over the details for more rapid development. You'll be able to get a lot done up-front using some cross-platform framework. On the flip side, when you want to do something that the framework doesn't support—and lets face it: it isn't going to implement all possible things those native APIs can do—you either have to implement it (for all platforms) using the native API, or do some other wierd hackery to get a "good enough" solution. And of course, when things go terribly wrong, having that extra layer of code you don't own makes it harder to debug. There really is something to be said for owning your entire stack as much as possible.
Writing two font ends is a lot of work, maintaining two front ends is a huge amount of work, if you need your program to run on multiple platforms go with a multi-platform toolkit.
If you write platform specific front-ends, each using the state of the art tools for that particular platform, you will get a much better user experience - but the cost of developing and maintaining those will be on the same order of magnitude as developing the entire application from scratch for each platform (yes, even with MVC).
Personally, I'd rather stick multiplatform and don't give a damn for that eyecandy, but if I wanted to pitch the use of those native APIs, I'd work out the (end-user-visible) differences between how things are done in different GUIs. If you can convince them that, in order to feel native, the program's user interface has to look and feel very differently on Windows and OSX (because of different design guides/philosophies/whatever), they should understand that, even with wx, you would still have to implement it twice, to accommodate those different requirements, so you might just as well use the real thing, i.e. the native API.
Also see this thread on the Google Chrome mailing list discussing the same choice of UI for Chrome on different platforms.
Win32 is definitely waay to old, but you might want to look into something like Microsoft Foundation Classes which is designed to do native development with C++. I assume that a similar thing exist for MAC.
Personally if I was in your situation I would properly also go for QT or WX.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to pitch using native UI toolkits in our next application vs sticking with wxWidgets?
No one likes a corridor-wiseass.
I think action speak louder than words...make a small prototype of how you think it could be done, and show it. Maybe you have to do this in your spare time.
Cocoa is really great so I think that with little code you can show an idea...well, this require that you know Cocoa enough.
Couple of year ago I when to work for company as web developer. It has my first Sirius web development job, (ASPx/C#) so it has very exciting and I learned a lot about that world, from the developer point of view.
In that group we had a concept for the pages where loaded in the page UC’s (User controls), I don’t know if it’s the same in every web development team with every language, I’ll assume it is so.
The contract ended and I came back to develop win32 “winForm” application.
But since them I have tried to apply the same principle for my win32 development I learn there, meaning having bunch of UC’s (Visual User controls) that I load in the form.
They are regular visual components, not loaded in the toolbox, code is available in the project, but the component is not developed in the form, they are loaded there.
I would like to know opinions about this approach, what other are doing similar or better to this And improvements that can help us to speed up development and increase code reuse, because that is what this is all about.
If you're using the layout components in Winforms, this might be an acceptable approach although I think the thing that distinguishes the web and Windows Forms (note: NOT WPF!) is that in the former you do a lot of "compositing" which is why the UserControl concept is so useful whereas in the latter you operate on very sophisticated controls (e.g. 3rd party - in my last gig we used an incredible grid control via a small company called Infralution)
The main problem I would see is with layouts since the rendering model is a little different than the web. I know nothing about your application but if it "works" that is what is most important. I assume in this case you use things like the FlowLayoutPanel and the TableLayoutPanel properly.
If you want to go a more canonical route, take a look beyond simply creating components at how you can use the inheritance model to composite your application in a more robust way - having a base Form class that has containers for where your "UserControl" type components go and then using some kind of interface based dependency injection to swap them out while the application is running.
Finally, take a look at some of the open source Windows Forms applications out there to see if you're being too hard on yourself since common UI and reusable components are a goal in every application. Even though I've always thought Microsoft's Patterns & Practices stuff teetered towards being bloated, there are some good ideas and you should study some of the approaches of the Composite UI Application Block they put out.
Okay, not finally, there's one more thing I'd like to add: take a long hard look at WPF which will bring back a lot of the concepts from your web development days and give you that kind of power in a desktop application.