Several years ago I worked in consulting. My company was hired by larger companies to build web applications. We worked on internal web applications, external ones, and even some that were completely consumer focused, like
the Washington Post Jobs site. Often we wrote applications that replaced existing desktop applications. Many of these were so called thick clients or client-server applications.
The list of technologies was all over the place: PowerBuilder, Swing, and Visual Basic. The reasons for the conversions were pretty similar though: make things more easily accessible. It was much easier to say “you need InternetExplorer 5.5 or higher” to run an application, than it was to require somebody to download and install, and stay upgraded to the latest version of an application. The hardest part about these conversions was trying to reproduce all the functionality. You just could not do it, and there were always compromises that you had to work out with the clients on this.
These days I am starting to think that such compromises are unacceptable. The days of the thin client are coming to an end. At the same time, the days of the thick client are not coming back. Instead a different pattern has emerged, and it is going to win. I call it the Network Application, though other folks have different names and different takes on it. Here is what it is.
Misuse of Big Iron To make things as accessible as possible generally meant to require as little as possible on the end user’s machine. The browser wars necessitated this as well. Inconsistencies across browsers required a least common denominator approach. The browser become a rendering device, and nothing else really.
All the computation required to determine the interface shown to a user was performed on servers. For awhile these servers were Big Iron -- look at how well SUNW did in the late 90’s. Moore’s Law caught up and lots of cheap servers replaced Big Iron, but the usage pattern remained unchanged. Programming languages flourished around this. Look at all the UI frameworks in Java, the explosion of PHP, and the emergence of Ruby on Rails.
Another Shift I am not one of those melodramatics who look for a single event and say “this epoch caused everything to change.” Things started changing. Browsers stabilized and Moore’s Law kept moving along. Microsoft’s attempt at subverting web browsers by creating IE-only extensions, ultimately backfired on them. They created XMLHttpRequest, which ultimately allowed for exactly what the Netscape think tank had always hoped for and Microsoft always feared: web applications that were on-par with desktop applications. Well sort of...
Web applications still have a lot to be desired. As I mentioned earlier, it can be really hard to reproduce a desktop experience in a browser. There are a lot of things going on to solve that, and some of them might even work. Orthogonal to the technologies at play is the pattern of how to program applications that are as feature rich as desktop applications, but can be run from a browser with no software to download or worry about updating.
The Pattern The key to the pattern is to stop using servers for creating user interfaces. If you like to think of UIs using the popular Model-View-Controller paradigm, the server should only be a place for Models. Your View and your Controller should be running on a client computer, not a server. Your server will probably serialize a Model to send to the client so it can use it in a view, but otherwise the boundaries should be very clear.
Why does this help with the problem of creating desktop-like applications? Because when all the view logic is located on the client, there are no limitations to the interactivity. For an example, think about infinite scrolling like you see in Yahoo Mail (I usually rip on Yahoo, so I thought this would be a nice change of pace.) If the view of the list of your emails is formed on a Yahoo server, then to scroll past the bottom means recalculating that view on a Yahoo server, even if it is to show one more email that is just past the bottom of the list. If you had to do it that way, you would not allow scrolling. You would force pagination, like GMail does. However, if you already have the code for creating that view on the client, then all you need on the client is the data to display.
Servers Are for Services The beauty of this pattern is that your servers become specialized in serving up data, not HTML. There is still some overhead in de-serializing the request and serializing the response and making it all work over HTTP, but it’s a lot less than the alternatives. Of course it’s not a read-only world, so you’re not just sending out data. You are also receiving changes to the data, either directly, or (hopefully) via a service interface. Just because we’re getting clever with our presentation design, doesn’t mean our middle-tier design can be garbage.
Notice I used the Service word. This is the same word used by those SOA guys, and it means the same thing. There’s no reason that the clients that you build for your service (in this case user interfaces) cannot leverage the same infrastructure that clients built by other folks use. Now you may want to expose more services to the user interfaces that you built, or maybe you don’t... The point is that if you decouple the so called business logic of your system, then it is easy to build Network Applications that provide rich user interfaces to the end users of your system.
Implementations of the Pattern Like most patterns, this was one has emerged from implementations. It is not something I dreamed up in my ivory tower in San Jose. One of my favorites is the Google Web Toolkit. GWT let’s you build things kind of like you would for the old-school thick clients using Swing, but it turns around, turns everything into code that runs on the client. One of my friends was starting to learn GWT recently and I think he was surprised when I told him that everything in GWT becomes static assets that can be served up by any web server directly. They are very cache-able assets as well... There are GWT ways to hook up your server calls as well, and of course this does require a Java application server. But that part of your code can be done in JavaScript, using GWT’s JavaScript Native Interface (JSNI.) The nice thing about using the GWT server code is that you get to use the same object model on client and server.
GWT is tied to JavaScript, and thus it inherits the limitations of JavaScript. My other favorite implementation of the pattern is Adobe Flex. Flex Builder 3 even has code generators for creating Java or PHP data services for communicating to your Flex application. Flex applications run inside the Flash player, and don’t have nearly as many limitations as JavaScript applications. Flex applications are usually much bigger than JavaScript ones, but are also very cache-able. Bandwidth is becoming less of an issue in terms of user experience, though it is still a cost issue.
The Moral of the Story If you are a UI engineer, you should not be writing HTML. You should only be writing code that executes on the client. There are many other options out there. In the JavaScript world, there’s Dojo’s Dijit, the Yahoo UI Library, even script.aculo.us. Ruby on Rails’ RJS has some similarities to GWT, but is not there yet. The Rails guys are still perfecting the last generation of web applications, and have not moved on yet :-) Straddling the JS and non-JS worlds is OpenLaszlo. I would be more enthusiastic about Laszlo if it was using new Flash technologies. On the non-JS side, the two chief non-Flash entities are Microsoft’s Silverlight and JavaFX.
Now again, these are all technologies that can be used with this pattern. They can also be used outside of the pattern, though I would say that is probably a mistake :-)
