I'm working on a Python program currently implement with wxPython for the GUI. The application is simply user-entry forms and dialogs. I am considering moving to PyQt because of the widgets it has (for future expansion), then I realized I could probably just use a browser to do much of the same stuff.
Edit For clarification, as of right now the application would be browser-based, not web-based. All the information would be stored locally on the client computer; no server calls would need to be made and no Internet access required (it may come later though). It would simply be a browser GUI instead of a wxPython/PyQt GUI. Hope that makes sense.
Free Browser Based Mmo Games No Download
tag_hash_105 🔥 https://ssurll.com/2yjZEx 🔥
The reality is that I've made my living over the last 10 years developing mostly web based applications, because they're faster to develop, easier to deploy and provide enough utility that people will use them if they have to.
Unless your core feature is the interface itself ("If it's a core business function -- do it yourself, no matter what." , see In Defense of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome from Joel on Software), I feel that the browser will be able to perform the form rendering and handling better than having to develop a GUI from scratch. Also, not to mention the it would take a much longer time to code a GUI as opposed to generating HTML forms and processing them after they are POSTed by the browser.
You cannot easily map the ctrl+j key to do something. For example: Google Spreadsheet tries to map keyboard shortcuts and works most of the time, sometimes the browsers default handling of the shortcut takes over..
Try resizing a Google Spreadsheet document, or load a page on Digg (a very javascript heavy site) - the browsers CPU usage will be at 100% for a while.. Doing the same in a native desktop application is trivial
One of the things I hate about web based UIs is the fact that they run inside another window. Meaning, you have controls -- maybe dozens of them -- that have nothing to do with your application. From a usability point of view this can be confusing though most of us have adapted by "tuning out" the extra stuff.
As I look at my browser window as I type this, the window is perhaps 12 inches tall, but the window in which I type is only maybe 3 inches. And out of that 12 inches overall, perhaps two full inches are taken up with browser toolbars, tabs, rows of bookmarks and the statusbar, none of which have anything to do with the web app I'm interacting with. There's a lot of wasted space (the edit window isn't as wide as the window as a whole, for example), space filled with stuff I don't need, etc. Some of the most fundamental controls (back button, I'm looking at you) can completely break poorly designed web applications.
All in all, a web based application just can't compare to the usability of a desktop application. For me, then, the question simply becomes "are you more interested in usability, or in making your (as the developer) life easier".
I have yet to use a single browser-based application on localhost, intranet, or internet that feels nice to use, is responsive, and who's user interface isn't strictly limited by the limitations of HTML/JS/CSS.
I think the browser based UI concept is here to stay. There is nothing more portalble than the web itself, and as long as one stays within the boundaries of decent javascript libraries...the rendering would be almost the same. Plus since the rendering is not your headache, you can concern yourself more with developing the business logic itself.
The web based UI will be more portable since does not bound the development to a single platform, and if the application runs in remote it is easier to update and to test all of it (excluding the GUI...) on a consistent environment (your server).But you should understand that while all of that is great and really groundbreaking, it also comes with some serious drawbacks.You should not only debug the application under all the target systems, but also under each single browser running on each single target system... and don't forget many versions of the same browser may coexists for some time, and that each browser's settings will be probably running different sets (and versions) of popular plugins which makes it behave differently, and probably network settings will be customized by users.If the application is in remote it opens a lot of interesting new problem, starting from different ISP that will drop different problems in the middle, or services downtimes due to network problems of you server, the user's machines or anywhere in the middle.A remote application is not an option for all the users in countries where the network service is of low quality, or is not reasonably priced; the same is true for you: you can start providing such a service only if in your country bandwidth is reasonable and reasonably priced.And if the application has to do something nontrivial on the user's system, you will be probably doomed in creating a lot of platform dependent code anyway.
As bottom line, today there are advantages and disadvantages in any of the two solutions.There are some applications that really need to be developed under the rich client model, and there are applications that really need to be developed under the web based paradigm.It's good to have both the options, it is critical to have a clear idea of what is the way fitting best our development / deployment / support strategy, and, I may add, it is silly to go after one or the other as if it is the definitive silver bullet following the fashion of the moment.
This is something learnt through the hard way. One main reason for this is that customers find it easier to install and manage browser based apps much easier than gui based eg where using JavaWebStart means the client will need to have a minimum JRE and their likes whereas the browser based only needs a link.
This section discusses how to upload files directly to Amazon S3 through a browser using HTTP POSTrequests. It also contains information about how to use the AWS Amplify JavaScript libraryfor browser-based file uploads to Amazon S3.
The "eternal war in cache" has reached browsers, with multiple cache-based side-channel attacks and countermeasures being suggested. A common approach for countermeasures is to disable or restrict JavaScript features deemed essential for carrying out attacks.
To assess the effectiveness of this approach, in this work we seek to identify those JavaScript features which are essential for carrying out a cache-based attack. We develop a sequence of attacks with progressively decreasing dependency on JavaScript features, culminating in the first browser-based side-channel attack which is constructed entirely from Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) and HTML, and works even when script execution is completely blocked. We then show that avoiding JavaScript features makes our techniques architecturally agnostic, resulting in microarchitectural website fingerprinting attacks that work across hardware platforms including Intel Core, AMD Ryzen, Samsung Exynos, and Apple M1 architectures.
As a final contribution, we evaluate our techniques in hardened browser environments including the Tor browser, DeterFox (Cao et al., CCS 2017), and Chrome Zero (Schwartz et al., NDSS 2018). We confirm that none of these approaches completely defend against our attacks. We further argue that the protections of Chrome Zero need to be more comprehensively applied, and that the performance and user experience of Chrome Zero will be severely degraded if this approach is taken.
A smaller problem ( but still very real ) is that internet connections can fail, from short outages to big blackouts. Just as with power-outages you can't really do anything while the internet is out if you're working on a fully internet based project.
Allow users to run Revit in the cloud to work from anywhere, on any device - even a Macbook, iPad, or Chromebook. Access Revit full capabilities from a browser with no plug-ins required like Solid Edge. -design/cloud-enabled-design/
There's a number of shortfalls for this. There are already quite a few users who are opposed to cloud-based features entirely, let alone putting *everything* there. I'm not entirely against the concept but it's important to acknowledge the flaws:
Failed to sign in. Please verify your credentials and try again. The browser based authentication dialog failed to complete. Reason: The download has failed (the connection was interrupted). at Microsoft.IdentityModel.Clients.ActiveDirectory.AuthenticationContext.RunAsyncTask[T](Task 1 task) at Microsoft.PowerBI.DataMovement.GatewayCommon.AuthenticationManager.AuthenticateWithSelectedUser(Uri authorityAddress, Uri resource, String clientId, Uri redirectAddress, String logOnHint)
I'm sorry that you're unable to use the one-time password generated by 1Password on your Windows PC to sign in to certain websites. Can you tell me if you're filling the one-time password using 1Password in the browser or copying and pasting it from the desktop app?
Now that 10.2.700 is out and people are playing with the AppStudio, what strategies are you using to move from a .Net client to a browser-based world? Many of us have simple customizations that hide, move items, rule rows, etc. and those should be easy.
From what I can see 4.6 no longer allows browser based access to a published desktop. Is this accurate? We are in the process of migrating from version 4.0 for latest IE support. Appears all that is available now is a client side application that tunnels clients through the web. 0852c4b9a8
free download of twilight ringtone
free download g unit beg for mercy album