Talk:Rich Internet application

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Patent threathens RIA? 1.1 Java applets? 1.2 Promoting a product? 1.3 phrasing 1.4 Definition? 2 List 3 Reminder for post-Ajax (Declarative Programming) VfD 4 List of Rich Internet Applications 5 Flash penetration 6 Article title? 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.2 Discussion 8 Geabios 9 Incorrect definition for RIA 10 smart client 11 Linkspam 12 NPOV 13 Capitalization 14 Where is AJAX 15 Asynchronous Modification

[edit] Patent threathens RIA?

I just learned today that there is a US patent granted today that (might?) threaten RIA:

See: U.S. Grants Patent For Broad Range Of Internet Rich Applications

See also: United States Patent 7,000,180 Balthaser February 14, 2006

In short:

"The patent--issued on Valentine's Day--covers all rich-media technology implementations, including Flash, Flex, Java, Ajax, and XAML, when the rich-media application is accessed on any device over the Internet, including desktops, mobile devices, set-top boxes, and video game consoles."

"It's kind of unbelievable that (the patent) has such a wide ranging use because it covers so many technologies," says Bola Rotibi, a senior analyst at Ovum, an IT advisory firm in London. If the patent is enforced broadly, she says, "anybody who does anything with rich applications will have to pay royalties to the company."

---

Presumably this only applies to companies that sell in the US. Stephen B Streater 10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java applets?

I think Java applets are the most popular and most powerful technique to implement RIA beside JavaScript. Why is it missing?

[edit] Promoting a product?

What's the policy on promoting a product on Wikipedia? I notice Backbase has put a plug for thier product in the Javascript section. Tumbarumba 19:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Backbase has not, I have put it there, more than two months ago. Until now, it wasn’t objectionable. The article mentions Macromedia and Laszlo, so I do not see the harm in mentioning a Javascript-based RIA product as well. Personally, I would like to see the text return (perhaps in different form), and not be easily dismissed as an advertisement. Grauw 08:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

If I may quote: "Macromedia is one vendor in this area, whose Macromedia Flash technology includes Flash Communications Server, Central, Breeze and Flex, all of which are run in viewers' browsers within the Macromedia Flash Player which has a 98% penetration with current internet users." - talk about blatant advertising. Grauw 08:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Full agreement. If there's a section at the end regarding different libraries to create RIA's, perhaps it should be listed alongside its (better known) competitors. As it stands, it's a poorly-disguised advertisement stuck in a section it doesn't belong in.

Does the Hummingbird link constitute linkspam?

I originally put the Hummingbird link there believing that it should be mentioned as a very early pioneer of the concept and possibly still at the most leading edge. However, to avoid spam confusion problems, I removed that link. What we must identify is where is the fine line between history and spam. Microsoft, Google, Macromedia get almost universal access to the articles, while other companies do not. And many times I actually would like to know of the other players. Maybe we just need to find the right place for them. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] phrasing

the phrasing "we'll have to..." doesn't belong into a encyclopedia. unfortunately i feel unable to rewrite it into a better sentence. thanks.

• done. --Sleepyhead81 19:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition?

It would be nice to have a definition of a "Rich Internet Application", and a comparison to non-rich Internet applications. The article says

much richer user-interface options other than the standard HTML widgets available to browser-based Web applications. "Richer" functionality could be "Drag and Drop," using a slider to change data, calculation that happens on the client (e.g., an insurance rate calculator) and do not need to be sent back to the server, etc.

but all of these except for full drag-and-drop are easy to implement using standard Javascript. Does a client-side mortgage amortization calculator (using only Javascript and no server interaction) count as an RIA? How about one that does some server-side fetching for in-page updating using standard tricks?

Using javascript is a method, see AJAX, ria is just a type of application, not a type of implementation. Freshraisin 02:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

How about a ticker-type application that gets updates from the server without refreshing the page? Does gmail count as an RIA? How about a Java applet that interacts with the user but not the server? How about a Java applet that interacts with both the user and the server?

My guess is that the defining characteristics of RIAs are:

• Does not follow the Web model of each interaction creating a new "page".
• Uses in-page server interaction.

But its not that simple, because there is a continuoum here as well; Gmail sometimes loads a new page, sometimes just uses javascript to open another folder, and you can imagine different apps everywhere on this spectrum.. Freshraisin 02:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Or, a snarkier way to put it: breaks the Back button... --Macrakis 23:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This one doesn't work either, because you can maintain compatibility with the Back button without ever loading a new page, even in Flash =/ Freshraisin 02:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Of all the terms found so far I think "Rich Internet Application" comes closest but really means very little. A "rich application" is generally speaking a "desktop application". A rich internet application is the one that user Internet and is not restricted to HTTP. Possible examples: ICQ, Skype, IRC, FTP, telnet, etc. Since term "web" is more commonly associated with HTTP it may be more suitable to call this entire thing "Rich Web Application", but even that does not preclude, for example, browsers - they are rich and use HTTP. More precise though.

I put more about this and other issues related to this article and Ajax in my personal opinion page, as I did not want to 'polute' talk pages with so much text. Please read. You may just find that there's something good there.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also the statement "RIAs typically transfer the processing necessary for the user interface to the Web client but keep the bulk of the data (i.e., maintaining the state of the program, the data etc) back on the application server." is incorrect. State is maintained in many cases on the client, that being part of the "rich" point. The client can handle much more responsibility without making a trip to the server. The server is necessary of course, to maintain state across sessions, and as a data source, but just using an app the state is on the client - in contrast to a traditional web app.

[edit] List

A list of RIA's should off course include all RIA's. 24SevenOffice is a RIA. I do work for the company but it's inclusion in the list is relevant. Please let me know if anyone think otherwise. --Sleepyhead81 10:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder for post-Ajax (Declarative Programming) VfD

A user has placed a WikiLink to Ajax (Declarative Programming) into the other techniques section; the article is undergoing VfD right now, since it appears to be non-notable original research created by the same user who has been a bit spammy with links to his own Ajax-technology-related company. Once the VfD is complete, if the article is deleted, we should be sure to restore the section back to its original state. Jason t c 13:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind; I just reverted the section to its state prior to the addition of the WikiLink. The discussion on the VfD page for the Ajax (Declarative Programming) article seems to support the notion that it's pure advertising; in any event, it certainly isn't notable enough to show up here, and it's seemingly original research to boot. Jason t c 15:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rich Internet Applications

List of Rich Internet Applications is short enough to join the main article. I propose a merge. -- Perfecto  03:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many pages like this. Jazzle 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not want a merge. Instead, I would prefer the List of Rich Internet Applications to include a wider range of applications giving readers examples of what type of things are out there. The main article should be more abstract, talking about generalities, with the list giving specific examples. Stephen B Streater 10:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also it keeps the linkspam off of the main article. --Artw 15:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I vote against the merge. The list may be short now, but it will grow. Unless we want this to end up like the Bully article, we should keep the list separate. --Throbblefoot

[edit] Flash penetration

I am dubious of the figures given for Flash penetration. This is for several reasons, itemised below:

• As a publisher of Java software, I have been to a wide range of companies and have often found machines that run Java and not Flash, but never the other way round
• Java installed rate is in the high 90%s, similar to that claimed for Flash, but firewalls and security settings in practice limit this to around 90%
• I often go to websites which say "Upgrade your Flash to see this site". Although I have Flash, I don't have the right version of it - so although I have Flash, it is not useful for these sites
• The only figures for Flash penetration seem to come from Macromedia, who are not a neutral supplier
• As far as I know, Macromedia do not publish their methodology, so their figures (while possibly true) are not verifiable WP:V

So, unless someone can come up with verifiable independent source for this 98% figure, I propose new wording along the following lines:

Flash claim a penetration rate of around 98%, although this figure includes older versions. Security settings may also prevent Flash-enabled computers from viewing Flash pages over the internet.

What do people think? Stephen B Streater 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

IIRC large numbers of Windows machines do not have Java by default. --Artw 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen, but Java Live Connect for Gecko's engine is broken for a long time. So, RIA (Java Applets) are moving to Flash. You can not create dissent application that will communicate with browser's javascript. I'm tired of hackin' browsers, and I decided to drop Java on client side (a lot of IE users have installed Java 1.1 runtime), even all the stuff we're doing on server side is Java driven only. I have a doubt in 98% of penetration (I can see what's going on in the log files of differen web sites runni' Flash client side applications). --MaNeMeBasat 07:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I know how many people have Java from web logs, and it's lots. But the question is whether the 98% figure for Flash is reliable. I am looking for verifiable evidence from an independent source.

As a matter of interest, does this Java applet work with your Gecko engine? I can't remember off hand whether we only use Live Connect for live video transmissions. Stephen B Streater 09:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your applet is runnin', no problem, but you do not interact with the webpage (I wrote about Java - JavaScript Live Connect, that means that you're callin' Java methods from JavaScript and vice versa). That's problem, and initialization of Live Connect takes long period of time. I wrote to these guys, but nothing happened for more than a year. Pure Java Applets embedded in the page are runnin' fine. That's it. --MaNeMeBasat 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad applet's working. Apple took a long time to get Live Connect workign too, but it works now. Stephen B Streater 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully I can clarify a some of this information a little bit. The penetration statistics are gathered by a third party: NPD Online. For information on Flash Player penetration by version, see this page. There is also information on the methodology used for the survey at that location. --Daniel Dura, Developer Relations Product Manager, Adobe

Thanks. I'll add this info to the article when I get to a PC. While you're here, I asked whether the Flash article should really have been moved to Adobe and have a URL on the Flash site where it is called Macromedia Flash (see Adobe Flash talk page). What is the official name these days? Stephen B Streater 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried the second link, and it just gives the home page. Do you have a direct link to the stats? Stephen B Streater 18:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've amended the Flash entry to say that the 98% figure is claimed by Macromedia and covers all versions of the plug-in. Stephen B Streater 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title?

Shouldn't this article be named Rich internet application rather than Rich Internet Application per WP:MOS? --John Seward 02:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Geabios

So how did geabios.com end up our flagship RIA? It seems a rather odd example, and not a particularly high quality one. Artw 23:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly FORscene is much more impressive ;-) Stephen B Streater 09:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually page, mentioned above, is an example where you can find almost all the techniques mentioned in the article (no one's talking about flagship in this case). It will be fine to add one or two images, there are some mentioned in the article (add the screen shot). Oh, yes, Stephen, your applet is blocking audio after I close the browser (Java's runnin' still in the background, I have to kill manually the process (Linux-FF)). --MaNeMeBasat 10:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect definition for RIA

Early on in the text, RIA's are described as:

"RIAs typically: run in a web browser, or do not require software installation"

This is not technically true as two primary platforms for RIAs namely "Java" and "Adobe Flash/Flex" both require a software installation. In actual fact, the statement "run in a web browser" is incorrect as well as some recent RIA frameworks completely bypass the browser. I believe Adobe will launch a new version of Flex running as a desktop application. Similarly, Microsoft's WPF can also be regarded as a RIA.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we need to rethink the definition of a "Rich Internet Application".

41.242.217.166 11:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you may be confusing a statement about an RIA, which is a type of Web application, with the characteristics of platform technologies or Web application frameworks. Just because the platform software needs to be installed does not invalidate the statement that "RIAs typically run in a web browser, or do not require software installation". Java and Flash are platform technologies, not applications. Perhaps that distinction needs to be made clear?

I am more concerned about the third bullet, which says: "can be 'occasionally connected' wandering in and out of hot-spots or from office to office". In my experience, RIAs must be connected to the Internet to function. Desktop applications which can connect to a Web server do not qualify as RIAs, in my opinion, but I am open to being persuaded that I am making an artificial distinction here. So, can anyone cite applications on the List of rich Internet applications for which this bullet is true? I suggest we modify or remove the bullet based on the response to this poll.

In general, as long as the definition describes RIAs "typically," we can use the List of rich Internet applications to judge its accuracy. If you have counter-examples that you believe would require a change to the definition, they should first be accepted on that list. Let's be consistent.

Chris Loosley 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded with any evidence to support the third bullet, I am going to edit the definition to remove the suggestion that offline support is a typical feature of RIAs. There is ample evidence that lack of offline support is actually the one feature that distinguishes RIAs from desktop applications, for example:

"Many ask this question, why offline support while Internet connection is becoming more and more accessible and fast over the world. The answer is simply because offline support is now the only thing missing to make web applications seriously compete with Desktop. AJAX and RIA was a step into the user interface and made web applications more interactive ...". | Ajax Magazine, June 5, 2007

Chris Loosley 05:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved 'offline operation' from the definition of a typical RIA to the section listing shortcomings and restrictions. I believe this is a much more accurate reflection of the situation in 2007.

Chris Loosley 05:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] smart client

Is this the same as a Smart client? Pizzachicken 23:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

The list of external links seems to be attracting linkspam. We do not need to list every site or blog about RIAs -- see these policies WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK. The following links do not appear to add much value, so I am deleting them:

• Light-and-flash.com Most commented news about Adobe Flex and Microsoft Silverlight technologies
• Riawars.com Community site dedicated to Rich Internet Application innovations
• http://www.bedesk.net BeDesk - Building the global interface
• http://www.quieromirar.com.ar Web 2.0 an RIA application for photo sharing and retouching
• http://www.riapt.org Comunidade Portuguesa de Desenvolvimento de Rich Internet Applications

Chris Loosley 10:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The See Also section is also extremely long. Wouldn't linking to a few "List of ... frameworks" be enough?--Adoniscik (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Even the very title of this article suggests NPOV. "Rich" internet application? How so? --Treekids 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

If it's "Rich Internet Application", the a should be capitalized. If it's "rich internet application", the I should be lowercase. Regardless, it's wrong. --Treekids 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Internet is a specific internet.--Adoniscik (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Further information: Internet capitalization conventions

[edit] Where is AJAX

AJAX is clearly the top "rich internet" technology today but it doesn't seem to be here at all. What is this, a Microsoft fanboy page? --Treekids 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asynchronous Modification

I updated the section discussing asynchronousness. The wording presented it as if the communication protocol was asynchronous which is not the case. It is still synchronous HTTP. The asynchronousness is acquired by communicating while the user in viewing or in other ways interacting with the page. I suspect that the author of that paragraph new that and just wrote a bit of ambiguous English. It is also possible for there to be asynchronous communication mechanisms used but this is not what was being discussed in the paragraph nor is it as common as the asynchronous communication and page interaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Smithline (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)