Remote X windows to your application instead of website? - Xwindows

This is a discussion on Remote X windows to your application instead of website? - Xwindows ; I was looking at the difference between a standard application and a website - the biggest difference being the way menus are used, and multiple windows for configuration etc. Really a website is a series of linked documents, or it ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Remote X windows to your application instead of website?

  1. Remote X windows to your application instead of website?

    I was looking at the difference between a standard application and a
    website - the biggest difference being the way menus are used, and
    multiple windows for configuration etc. Really a website is a series of
    linked documents, or it works as a remote display of types (which it
    wasn't designed to do).

    I know websites do menus and multiple windows etc occasionally. But I
    was wondering why instead of a web server, we couldn't be running the
    remote side of a sophisticated program running somewhere else in the
    world - maybe like remote X-windows for Unix/Linux.

    As a user I want something that looks like I downloaded and ran it
    natively, yet with all the advantages of a connected website. Is that a
    short jump from X11/Xwindows now (or do they already do it?). Would
    Apple's cocoa (which was cross platform) + pdf work? (I'd be hesitant
    to use a standard that belonged to anyone!) Has HTML/Java expanded so
    much that it no longer matters?

    Just wondering.

  2. Re: Remote X windows to your application instead of website?

    Greg Alexander wrote:

    > I was looking at the difference between a standard application and a
    > website - the biggest difference being the way menus are used, and
    > multiple windows for configuration etc. Really a website is a series of
    > linked documents, or it works as a remote display of types (which it
    > wasn't designed to do).
    >
    > I know websites do menus and multiple windows etc occasionally. But I
    > was wondering why instead of a web server, we couldn't be running the
    > remote side of a sophisticated program running somewhere else in the
    > world - maybe like remote X-windows for Unix/Linux.


    You mean something like: http://www.broadwayinfo.com/ ?

    -- ced

    >
    > As a user I want something that looks like I downloaded and ran it
    > natively, yet with all the advantages of a connected website. Is that a
    > short jump from X11/Xwindows now (or do they already do it?). Would
    > Apple's cocoa (which was cross platform) + pdf work? (I'd be hesitant
    > to use a standard that belonged to anyone!) Has HTML/Java expanded so
    > much that it no longer matters?
    >
    > Just wondering.



    --
    Chuck Dillon
    Senior Software Engineer
    NimbleGen Systems Inc.


  3. Re: Remote X windows to your application instead of website?

    On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:17:44 +1100, Greg Alexander wrote:

    > I was looking at the difference between a standard application and a
    > website - the biggest difference being the way menus are used, and
    > multiple windows for configuration etc. Really a website is a series of
    > linked documents, or it works as a remote display of types (which it
    > wasn't designed to do).
    >
    > I know websites do menus and multiple windows etc occasionally. But I
    > was wondering why instead of a web server, we couldn't be running the
    > remote side of a sophisticated program running somewhere else in the
    > world - maybe like remote X-windows for Unix/Linux.
    >
    > As a user I want something that looks like I downloaded and ran it
    > natively, yet with all the advantages of a connected website. Is that a
    > short jump from X11/Xwindows now (or do they already do it?). Would
    > Apple's cocoa (which was cross platform) + pdf work? (I'd be hesitant
    > to use a standard that belonged to anyone!) Has HTML/Java expanded so
    > much that it no longer matters?
    >
    > Just wondering.



    Most people use Java. The application just connects back over the network
    when it starts.



  4. Re: Remote X windows to your application instead of website?

    The communication between browser and web-server is mostly (yes, I said
    mostly) stateless. Which means, client (browser) requests something,
    webserver gives that "something", and thats it!. Server do not need to
    remember the details about client anymore. In this way, number of clients
    that can be served can scale up to millions!!

    However with X-windows, it is a statefull communication and server has to
    maintain some information about each client all through the life of client
    invocation. I'm afraid, server cant scale well!


    "Greg Alexander" wrote in message
    news:111120030017449758%galexand@ozemail.com.au...
    > I was looking at the difference between a standard application and a
    > website - the biggest difference being the way menus are used, and
    > multiple windows for configuration etc. Really a website is a series of
    > linked documents, or it works as a remote display of types (which it
    > wasn't designed to do).
    >
    > I know websites do menus and multiple windows etc occasionally. But I
    > was wondering why instead of a web server, we couldn't be running the
    > remote side of a sophisticated program running somewhere else in the
    > world - maybe like remote X-windows for Unix/Linux.
    >
    > As a user I want something that looks like I downloaded and ran it
    > natively, yet with all the advantages of a connected website. Is that a
    > short jump from X11/Xwindows now (or do they already do it?). Would
    > Apple's cocoa (which was cross platform) + pdf work? (I'd be hesitant
    > to use a standard that belonged to anyone!) Has HTML/Java expanded so
    > much that it no longer matters?
    >
    > Just wondering.




  5. Re: Remote X windows to your application instead of website?

    Maraya wrote:
    > However with X-windows, it is a statefull communication and server has to
    > maintain some information about each client all through the life of client
    > invocation. I'm afraid, server cant scale well!


    This goes both ways. With WEB, you need to re-establish context with each
    press of the "SUBMIT" button. And you have the problem of re-identifying the
    user with each submit. With X-windows, you have a constant session with an
    identified user, so you reduce much of the overhead with each interaction.

    X requires more interactivity (each keystroke, mouse movement). On the other
    hand, you don't need to supply a whole HTML laden with javascript with each interaction.

    Also, if you fill a field and press tab to move to the next one, the
    application can immediatly verify the field's content and ring a bell or take
    other action if verification failed. For WEB, it requires that you eother
    supply valid values inside javascipt code to validate (hard to do if you have
    a database of a million names) or require user to press "SUBMIT" to have the
    server validate it.

  6. Re: Remote X windows to your application instead of website?

    Chuck Dillon wrote in message news:...
    > Greg Alexander wrote:


    > > I know websites do menus and multiple windows etc occasionally. But I
    > > was wondering why instead of a web server, we couldn't be running the
    > > remote side of a sophisticated program running somewhere else in the
    > > world - maybe like remote X-windows for Unix/Linux.

    >
    > You mean something like: http://www.broadwayinfo.com/ ?


    Thanks, that's exactly the sort of thing I was wondering about.
    So there are ways now using X11 with it's special browser plugins
    and compression/caching options.

    On the issue of too much bandwidth - surely anything that can go
    to a web page could only do it better if the client had more smarts
    in it to aid in the display?

    Thanks all,
    Greg

  7. Re: Remote X windows to your application instead of website?

    Greg Alexander wrote:
    > On the issue of too much bandwidth - surely anything that can go
    > to a web page could only do it better if the client had more smarts
    > in it to aid in the display?


    It depends on the level of interactivity you want. Traditional web pages are
    more "batch" oriented. Similar to IBM 3270 terminals. Send transaction only
    once you've filled the whole screen. X terminals are closed to VT200 terminals
    where there is constant interactivity with the remote host.

    Using Java can give a "web" access greater smarts and interactivity. But then,
    you need to decide whether you want to stick to HTTP transactions, or whether
    you want to implement a more transactional link between the JAVA app and the
    remote host. But this is more complex to implement because you need to worry
    about the transaction protocol between the user and remote host. With X, this
    is all done for you.

    However, X may not be too workable if over slow links.

+ Reply to Thread