Realbasic on the web without plugins
keith.clarke at clarkeandclarke.co.uk
Fri Sep 23 02:49:46 CDT 2011
Thanks for the response and reminder of your post, Richard. I read the 'first edition' but now understand more of the fundamental differences between LiveCode and web concepts (which I know slightly, but not much better)! ;-)
The LiveCode language isn't currently designed to manage web pages. However, it's flexibility means that it could be easily extended with the necessary objects and functions (either in the core functionality or via a library or external). Page controller functions could manage those cards to be rendered as pages, adding template capabilities, DOM, layout management, markup for the contained UI elements and support for Ajax calls.
See this Salesforce.com Visual Force Developer's guide to see how the Salesforce Apex language (analogous with LiveCode Server scripting) was exposed and extended for managing web pages http://www.salesforce.com/us/developer/docs/pages/index.htm IMHO LiveCode could be applied in a similar fashion to extend itself - indeed, this is the to do list!
So, if the LiveCode server stack contained cards (maybe in a designated 'pages' substack) that allowed UI components, the card UI controls could be associated with standard HTML blocks and CSS, with property mapping. Cards designated as pages could be complete 'LiveCode Pages' or divs to be rendered within pages of a web site managed outside of LiveCode.
However, meanwhile - and crucially - LiveCode developers could start delivering native LiveCode web apps into the Cloud and Enterprise space, where the browser plugin is generally not available.
On 22 Sep 2011, at 15:39, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Keith Clarke wrote:
> > But even if it isn't easy, if RunRev don't grasp the nettle on
> > this, developers who must deploy standards-based rich apps into
> > cloud and locked-down Enterprise environments will be forced
> > elsewhere, which would be a shame.
> I wrote about this last year:
> Like too many of my posts that's a long one, but it represents pretty much everything I came up with that's relevant to the discussion, and I've been thinking about this a long time since two of my biggest projects are all about the web and are based in LiveCode.
> In short:
> There are two sides to this, client and server.
> On the server side RunRev has already provided what may be the most cost-effective solution for that with RevServer.
> But the client is a whole other game, fully immersed not only in a very different language but also in a deeply well-defined object model that, in many respects, bears little resemblance to LiveCode's.
> We use LiveCode because a good scripting language lets us build things more quickly than we could do in a lower-level language like C.
> But the object models are very different.
> That said, there are many opportunities for using LiveCode to generate some portions of the client-side experience for the web. A starting point was outlined here in 2006:
> We can have that too, and we needn't wait for anything from RunRev - anyone with sufficient time and motivation can build this today.
> But somewhere along the way you'll eventually find limitations between what LiveCode can do on the desktop and what a translation to a different object model will be able to do on the web. There's more to apps than forms.
> Fortunately, it's kinda fun to learn and there are orders of magnitude more resources for that than we have for all the things we've learned about LiveCode.
> Dive in, the water's fine.
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World
> LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
> Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
> LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv
More information about the use-livecode