Message-ID: <50BF7DCB.4040208@arcor.de>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:00:59 +0100
From: Der Tiger <der.tiger.alpine@arcor.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kaarle Ritvanen <kaarle.ritvanen@datakunkku.fi>
CC: "V.Krishn" <vkrishn4@gmail.com>, 
 "alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org" <alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>,
 acf@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Ideas for a new config framework, ACF2
References: <20121129152317.69585a4f@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> <201212022211.23812.vkrishn4@gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1212050955390.22932@kunkku.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1212050955390.22932@kunkku.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Kaarle,

> As much as I dislike JavaScript as a programming language, I still
> think it is the best choice for client implementation. Virtually all
> devices support JavaScript nowadays, and there are lots of tools which
> we can leverage in our implementation.
The problem with a client implementation and mobile devices won't be so
much compatibility, but performance. PDAs and Tablets still don't offer
a lot of cpu power, while the OS and the browser software itself often
use up most of the available resources. Soon, the JavaScript client
software is likely to hit a performance wall on those devices, when the
complexity of the client software increases with functionality.

I can't help myself, but with all that has been written, I still don't
see the benefit of a strict client implementation over a JavaScript-free
host implementation. You and Nathanael, on the other hand, seem to be
quite set on advocating your proposal. Well, I suppose you've thought it
through.

Best Regards, Tiger


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---