Rich Internet Applications (RIA)

We are happy to announce the second RIA forum which will take place in Darmstadt (close to Frankfurt), 23rd of April 2010! This time, with Canoo Engineering AG as premium sponsor, four well known speakers will talk about the advantages and disadvantages of four different ways to create effective user interfaces (especially in business contexts).

Instead of giving details here I recommend to visit the forum page directly: http://www.riaforum.com (in German). Please be aware that we can only provide entrance to a limited audience, so if you want to join, make sure you sign up quickly.

Excerpt of  ”Rich Internet Applications for Business”, an article by Hans Dirk Walter, CEO Canoo Engineering AG (in print).

Even if RIA technology continues to expand steadily in the future and the number of purely HTML based applications does decline, it is nonetheless not recommended to resort to an RIA framework or library for technology’s sake alone when developing online applications. Instead, the decision depends on the user interface requirements.

Figure 1 provides a schematic illustration of various categories of application depending on usage, and shows the dependency of these applications with regard to interactivity requirements and interface richness (UI functionality, drag & drop, graphics).

.

Typical web applications such as online shopping or rail timetables, that are only occasionally visited by their customers, need to be self explanatory and easy to operate. Speed and sophisticated interaction are of secondary importance in these cases. This type of application is best implemented using form based “wizards”. The functionality offered by HTML is generally more than sufficient in such cases. This does not apply, however, to productive systems, whose users often spend several hours per day with the application. The interface need not necessarily be self explanatory, while training is normally worthwhile. These kinds of application should be developed using RIA technology. The final types of program identified are games, which place the most demanding requirements of all in terms of interactivity (extremely speedy program reaction times in response to rapid successive inputs), as well as sophistication (3D animations, film sequences, etc.) Such application have so far scarcely been realised in satisfactory quality as RIAs.

Excerpt of  ”Rich Internet Applications for Business”, an article by Hans Dirk Walter, CEO Canoo Engineering AG (in print).

We are pleased to announce that new maintenance releases for UltraLightClient is now available for download.

This is a maintenance release for UltraLightClient ‘08 that fixes the issue
UBA-7852 introduced by update 4.
In addition we have fixed three other issues

• [UBA-7573] – ULCComponent.add/removeNotify() does not work inside ULCTabbedPane and ULCCardPane
• [UBA-7580] – Missing column selection event for ULCTableTree with expansion listener
• [UBA-7760] – [Mac OS X 10.5.7, JRE 1.5] Installing shortcuts on the dock messed up the dock

Please see the ULC ‘08 update 4 release notes for the complete list of implemented feature requests and fixed problem reports.

Please note: the UltraLightClient ‘08 license key is valid for all software releases labeled UltraLightClient ‘08. If you already have a ULC ‘08 license key, a new license key is not required.

We are pleased to announce that the maintenance release ULC Visual Editor for Eclipse 6.1.2 is now available.

Installation from the update site: http://update.canoo.com/ulcve is easily done using the eclipse built in software installation and updating mechanism

This is a maintenance release for ULC Visual Editor for Eclipse. Please see the release notes for a list of implemented feature requests and fixed problem reports:

Please note: the ULC Visual Editor 6.1 license key is valid for all software releases labeled ULC Visual Editor 6.1. If you already have a ULC Visual Editor 6.1 license key, a new license key is not required.

We are pleased to announce that new maintenance releases for UltraLightClient and ULCLoad are now available for download.

These are maintenance releases for UltraLightClient ‘08 and ULCLoad 3.0. Please see the ULC ‘08 update 4 release notes and the
ULCLoad 3.0.2 release notes for a list of implemented feature requests and fixed problem reports :

Please note: the UltraLightClient ‘08 license key is valid for all software releases labeled UltraLightClient ‘08, the ULCLoad 3.0 license key is valid for all software releases labeled ULCLoad 3.0. If you already have one of these license keys for your product, a new license key is not required.

You want to know more about the framework behind CATS, the soccer betting tool which just won the W-Jax developer challenge? Take a look on a video which presents the advantages of Canoo’s RIA technology in a nutshell:

.

Session title: RIA Security: Broken by Design
From: Joonas Lehtinen, CEO IT Mill

IT Mill is the creator of Vaadin: A 100% Java tool for RIA.

Joonas outlines a spectrum of complexity from Basic site to 3D games examples:
Web Sites (Wikipedia), AJAX Sugar (Facebook), Full RIA

He divides „Full RIA“ divide into client side vs. Server driven. Gives a crash course in GWT.

Vaadin: Apparently 100% Java and server driven, which sounds an awful lot like ULC at this stage… But here’s a difference: It builds on GWT and relies on JavaScript on the client-side.

He goes on to present a bunch of development rules:

Rule #1: Don’t trust the browser
Rule #2: Complexity is a hiding place for bugs
Rule #3: Large surface give more opportunities for attack. This surface has increased with Web 2.0.

Difference between GWT and Vaadin architectures is that GWT relies on the client invoking a server-side Web Service API, whereas Vaadin renders the client’s view on the server.

Erm… he then offers the cures for the problems (Rules above)… which I miss because the explanation is compressed into around 5s.

I’m starting to dislike this presentation at this point. Because here comes another artificial security issue scenario… which guess which product solves. And I thought product placement in Hollywood movies was irritating.

The issues he raises are legitimate, but the lack of objectivity is obscuring the message. And as I write the presenter is debugging JavaScript which depends on analysing the DOM on the client side – I’m not sure if he’s now analysing the problem or trying to fix it!?

I am formally declaring myself lost at this stage. At least I hope the other attendees are getting something out of this presentation, which has lost focus IMO.

He continues with a discussion about attacking at the transport level, inserting new data on the fly. But come on: A secure transaction in this technical setting will operate under HTTPS, which in most instances will deal with this kind of attack. Unless, of course, that’s something else I missed.

I think I need a coffee!!!

First note that the speakers Ben Galbraith and Don Almaer are co-founders of ajaxian.com, which is clearly an AJAX-shop. They claim that Web technologies and Java went stagnent in the UI space. Ajax and JavaFX have the characteristics of a renaissance. They structure the talk in the form of a “discussion” or a series of arguments, where one supposedly pits the advantages of said technology against the other.

•    Argument #1: Java performs way faster than JavaScript; on the other hand JavaScript is getting faster all the time (V8 team at Google); plus apps like Google wave demonstrate that performance is good enough.
•    Argument #2: Responsiveness improved by worker-threads in a Java GUI. Yet using “web workers” we can overcome the limitation of JavaScript to a single thread. Demo of Pictastic proves the point. Having said that, web workers are still 10 times slower than Java; plus the API is extremely limited. In “web worker”, worker threads don’t share state, which is way safer than the totally flexible Java approach.
•    Argument #3: GC way more advanced in Java. On the other hand, incremental GC in Mozilla is improving all the time. A lousy fact of the JVN is having to determine how much memory the app requires (or how much is available) wherever the app is deployed.
•    Argument #4: Graphical capabilities of Java surpass what web apps can do. But performance of Bubblemark benchmark app shows that Google chrome achieves 100 frames per second. By comparison JavaFX achieves 24 FPS. With vector graphics Chrome is back down to 30 FPS. What the speakers don’t consider is that JavaFX is a very new and to-date under-optimised technology.
•    Argument #5: An Ajax 3D demo “metatunnel” is pretty impressive. Most browsers, apparently, are offering 3D extensions. It’s still at the experimental stage, however. JavaFX, on the other hand, has nothing to show in 3D.
•    Argument #6: Java is weak on fonts. The speakers claim that can’t use native fonts in Java (is this true? I seem to remember supplying Java with some additional fonts some years back.) Control over fonts in the Ajax world is even more limited, however.
•    Argument #7: JavaFX provides “amazing” video support. Counter argument: Flash plugin us ubiquitous and surpasses JavaFX in terms of maturity. Open Web Video offers sophisticated video functions.
•    Argument #8: Binding in JavaFX is compact and elegant. Web toolkits are very clumsy by comparison. The speakers quickly mention Mixins, Animation and Effects. All of this is way easier in JavaFX…
•    Argument #9: Legitimate critisisms are raised about JavaFX syntax. Speakers suggest that JavaScript is actually easier and closer to Java than JavaFX Script. And, of course, JavaFX totally lacks widgets like table/tree. Web toolkits even provide some very cool layout management and tools for constructing GUIs.
•    Argument #10: Tooling superior in the Java world.
•    Argument #11: Deployment. Web wins here, obviously, except for significant browser incompatibilities. Applets, Mac etc. are lousy too, however.

Conclusion: A pretty damning result for JavaFX, which is for the most part justified (at least today.) What the speakers fail to do, however, is talk more fairly about the significant problems faced by AJAX developers on a daily basis.

Over the last two days I attended the PillarOne Conference in Brussels. (PillarOne Conference? Never heard before? That’s probably because this is the first time this conference has taken place.)

The main focus of the conference was not about Web applications or Rich Internet Applications; it was about risk management in the financial sector and how open-source software can assist in averting financial collapse of the kind we’re currently facing.

Over one year ago Munich Re (one of the world’s largest re-insurers) initiated the development of an open-source business application suite entitled PillarOne. PillarOne seeks to address every aspect of reserving and risk analyses of insurance companies. Open-source has particular relevance to this business: Identifying and simulating risk cries out for openness and for a strong community that actively validates the applied models and methods. There is absolutely no doubt that conducting Risk Management behind closed doors and concealing models behind inappropriate tools like Excel has contributed to the current financial crisis.

Intuitive Collaboration’s Markus Stricker points out the direction of future risk management tools

Risk management tools like this also have special requirements which are perfectly met by Rich Internet Application technology like UltraLightClient. Firstly, the complex models and simulations need highly interactive and responsive user interfaces designed for power users. Secondly, truly capable risk management tools must be enterprise solutions with all features these solutions normally have (central database, logging, historization, multi-user synchronization etc.). On the other hand, risk managers are used to having their tools on their laptops being fully functional even if they are off-line. Intuitive Collaboration – the company behind PillarOne – has chosen Grails and UltraLightClient because they meet both these requirements. UltraLightClient is a web-based user interface technology that in conjunction with Grails enables the cost-effective implementation of web applications with the most sophisticated user interfaces that are vital for handling the complex domain of risk management and simulation. Moreover, an application can be deployed as on an enterprise server or as standalone tool on a risk-manager’s laptop without changing a single line of code in the application.

Canoo’s Dierk König and SAP’s Christos Lemonidis demonstrating the SAP integration of ULC and Grails based PillaOne

That PillarOne is a milestone for risk management tools is underlined by the fact that SAP has chosen this platform to offer Solvency II compliant risk management to its insurance customers. Just in time for the conference, the UltraLightClient-based PillarOne was successfully integrated into SAP and shown at the conference as an online demo to a captivated audience.

The conference was attended by a large number of risk managers and regulators, one of whom (a speaker) was bold and self-effacing enough to describe the current crisis as “collective failure of a whole profession”. Whatever the full spectrum of reasons behind this collective failure is, the potential of an open-source tool such as PillarOne is to provide the system with a degree of transparency and robustness that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. This has got to be a good thing for all citizens, not just risk managers!