[MUD-Dev] Java and Javascript

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 25 Feb 98 at 22:30, Ben Greear wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> >  
> > JavaBeans can be made persistent.  And they are a good idea for 
> > whole lot of other reasons.  I like modular components like ActiveX, 
> > JavaBeans, lego kits, erector sets, train sets, etc.  Then again, I 
> > believe the mud builder and user interface should look more like 
> > "Widget Workshop" or "The Incredible Machine" rather than the ever-
> > blinking and oppressive ">".
> 
> Aye, it could be persistant easy enough..except that I would have to
> store values for each different user for the applet...  Not gonna
> try to do that for sure....
>

The bean can be customized by the user (indirectly, of course, 
instantiated through your client progam) and it saves itself on the 
client machine.  The potential problem of giving the user an updated 
bean (code) is mitigated by the initialization of the bean done with 
data on the client machine.  At least I think they are capable of 
this negotiation (anyone?).  If your beans are functional cohesive 
and loosely coupled (an ideal state, for any software..period.), you 
should be able to provide smaller code updates and maintenance.
The player's character can even be a bean stored on the client
system.  There are security issues from a mud-hacking standpoint
though, but I'll leave it to others to go there.

Beans are good.  Even Caribou Coffe prefers to ship beans rather than
grounds. :P

> > It's hard to become lazy about something you've never had to do
> > before and have no clue as to how to proceed.
> 
> The worst part is, no one has the latest browsers that can run java
> 1.1 yet.  Sure, once you get through the download it's easy to
> install, MS even has a 'wizard'...you just click on their page and
> wait 5 hours...
>

Yep.  Big problem.  Will they ever?  Not if IE supplants Netscape and 
Sun doesn't cry uncle and remove or revise certain "MS offensive" 
specifications from the 1.1 JDK.  BTW, This is not a diatribe either 
way, just an observation of the current state.  

One can get most of the 1.1 JDK to work in most browsers.  It's just
a real pain in the ass to find out what to stay way from.  The 
only alternative is to maintain different versions. (groan)

> Yeah, I think it's pretty easy to build with the client, once you
> get it running.  But getting it running is the hard part.  It will
> get better as more ppl have updated browsers..or that activator
> stuff ever gets widespread.
>

ActiveX is supported by Netscape and IE so thats 80%+ of your 
web clients (Lynx be damned!).  However, I don't know of any non-MS 
server-side support for ActiveX.  JavaBeans are also easier to code 
and understand. 

--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD     Internet:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\   "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato   /*\--