Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
So I been following A-frame WebVR and learning it since 2015. For me being a Web 'DESIGNER' since 2006, A-frame has been fairly easy to follow and design with, up until A-frame 1.0.0.
It seems now A-frame is becoming extremely cumbersome to work with. My design process was to always design on desktop using a web browser(like Firefox, Chrome, Edge)enter image description here and check for the WEBVR through cardboard.
Now with the new updates assets like models and images will not load on any browser. Image assets for a-sky is extremly important in my design process.
And I read all the information about using a https connection, which shouldn't be necessary if your just in the design process. No other HTML application like Jquery, Bootstrap or ReactJS requires this. And I read about using your computer as a local server, again cumbersome, and extremely slow when designing PLUS it didn't work or it was so slow, its impossible to have the patience enough to design with.
I'm at the point of giving up on Aframe and moving on, just like Magic Leap.
So my question is whats the future of Aframe. Do the Aframe creators really expect 'DESIGNERS' to learn this stuff. The promise originally for Aframe was that it would be simple and USER FRIENDLY if your use to building with HTML, CSS and Javascript. It seems that it is gravitating away from that to something else.
HTTPS is enforced by browser vendors to access new APIs. It's not an A-Frame decision. WebXR, DeviceMotion and other APIs that A-Frame relies on are now only available over secure contexts (HTTPS) as per browser policies. Any site, library or framework using any of those APIs is subject to the same restrictions.
Tips:
localhost is not subject to the HTTPS requirement so you can spawn a local server and develop via localhost:port/
Look into port forwarding to test on devices other than your dev machine
Local development servers like budo or webpack-dev-server have https modes using self signed certificates.
Github pages or code hosting platforms like Glitch, Repl.it or Codepen provide https end points out of the box.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have to make Mobile Native App(s) for Multiplatform(iPhone,Android,etc..) but right now for (iOS-iPhone), and i am .NET guy and also have developed a testing app for Point of Sale by Xamarin.Forms, but right now i have to make real application and that will be publicly available.Here is application details:
This application from 1st day will be Multilingual like, Arabic(1st language) and English (2nd language).
I have to develop a standard shopping cart to view LOT LOT PRODUCTS WITH DIFFERENT IMAGES/ MAY BE VIDEO for each product, and UI SHOULD BE AWESOME/COMPELLING.
Wish List product,Sharing product,Cart info, User Profile, Delivery status, may be in future Map integration to show the status of delivery in Minutes/Kms etc
So i have to finalize the technology, please help me.
Xamarin.Forms or Xamarin.iOS...?
I want the quickest (as developer point of view) and
highly performance (as customer/user point of view).
Thanks,
-NZ
I think for your app your should go with Native instead of Forms because you want AWESOME/COMPELLING UI. for this you need to customize UI controls which is not easy with Xamrin forms.
developer point of view
If you are a .NET guy and know xaml, it will be easier for your to use forms. With native you will have to learn another plateform to code. +1 for Forms.
Forms will we quicker as it you can share code for different platform. +1 for Forms
With forms, you will have to use basic controls available on all plateforms. customizing it for required effect will going to difficult. with Native - You can get maximum of UI. +1 for Native
customer/user point of view
App developed with forms are slower at the time of launching - it slower in initializing. As a user or Customer -- I won't like this. +1 for Native
Adding platform specific functionality later will be easier with native +1 for Native
List item
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I’ve developed an application over .Net 4 / MVC 3. And now I want to host, this is my first ever hosting experience so I'm confused and seriously need help.
It’s not so complex application basically serving as a community image sharing website.
Now I'm looking for a hosting service for it, I don’t know much about it but what I’ve learnt I think I need following in it.
Host provided using IIS 7 (that’s fully supports .NET4/MVC3 so I could ideally use MVC routing functionalities totally, without having the headache of adding extensions in route and support functionalities (File MIME Types, Custom Error Pages etc.)
As it’s a community website, so it should remain available 24/7 like good server performance and availability, so users don’t get bugged by server not available and alike errors.
Domain registering/hosting functionality, Security
SQL Server support, an easy control panel (I think Cpanel?)
Dedicated IP address for my website (for SSL and better SEO)
Ideally unlimited bandwidth/space packages (because it image sharing so it can be increasing in both parameters)
And of rouse as it’s not actually a commercial product so be compact in price.
I know I’ve put up a lot of points up, but I’ve also searched through other threads and other forums and found out these as recommended options, any words over their performance and support:
Arvixe | Seekdotnet
Here are some you can use. Depending on the price you want to pay.
I have godd experiences with GoDaddy and DiscoutASP (both offers what you need, depending on what you want to pay).
But there are so many hosters. Its not only the features and price that counts, it is also the location of the servers .
Companies
GoDaddy
DiscountASP
Arvixe
Seekdotnet
WinHost
Peer Hosting Stackoverflow Offer
Hosting Lists / Directories
Windows Web Hosting Gallery
Best ASP.NET Hosting
Best Windows Hosting
Just my experience
One of my website is hosted on Godaddy. The domain and hosting was ordered on 22 december 2011. To be honest, they may be cheap and enticing at first, but their services aren't too great to talk about. My site is hosted on Asia-Pacific servers so I am talking about those only. The one's in US might have good standard so I can't comment. Actually they have too many customers so it's basically boils down to very tedious task to manage all of those. But, even if we say this, that's what we pay them for.
DiscountAsp is a slight bit expensive and it's good too. No current experience, but they were great when I tried them in 2009 so I suppose they might have only improved. But, do consider the reviews from real users for this hosting provider.
Cytanium is another hosting provider. My friend has a website hosted on it and if his views can be taken, it's a very recommended windows hosting provier. If your requirements aren't that big, you will find it cheap.
Additional Info
You haven't asked for deployment guidance, but I am listing a decent article for getting things up and running with few insights into this important aspect of web development : Deployment to a Hosting Provider
Winhost is a good option, and I believe it has everything you need. I am currently using it to host a .NET4/MVC3 website.
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
Will IE9 support WebGL and/or WebSockets?
Most answers to the question "When will browser X support HTML5 feature Y?" are answered by When Can I Use. In addition to list past, current and future support each item also generally has links to relevant news.
WebSockets
WebGL
Update:
Microsoft has been actively participating in the IETF HyBi working group (WebSockets protocol) and also participating in W3C work on the WebSockets API. The IE 10 preview release has WebSocket support built-in so it looks very likely that we will soon see a official release version of IE with WebSockets.
WebGL in IE still looks pretty uncertain. Microsoft claims fundamental security issues with the design of WebGL, but I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Microsoft has a vested interest in promoting their own DirectX framework rather than OpenGL (which is what WebGL is based on).
As of a few months ago, the IE9 team hadn't made a decision about supporting WebSockets, and they didn't seem to see the point to WebGL.
WebGL seems not to be include in IE's strategy because of DirectX.
Anyway google already worked on that with the ANGLE project.
http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/
The IE team added a WebSocket implementation at HTML5 Labs which is their testing ground for new implementations. Chances are high that WebSockets will make it in IE9
You can look at the current release notes for the platform demo - there is no mention of either WebSockets or WebGL.
There are many discussions of the security issues of WebGL. I first heard of it on one of Steve Gibson's podcasts. Since it gives much lower level access to both the operating system and the hardware any flaw can be exploited much more severely. A quick Google search found this article with descriptions and video of some of the flaws: http://www.contextis.com/research/blog/webgl2/
Microsoft seems quite reluctant to implement WebGL in IE, since OpenGL is a competitor to DirectX. So I think it's unlikely we'll see WebGL in IE in the near future.
I’ve started an Open Source project called JebGL that can serve as a fallback for IE users. It’s a Java applet that when finished will serve as a plugin replacement for a WebGL canvas. It’s still in the early stages of development, but you can check out the demos at http://jebgl.googlecode.com
Right now, the Microsoft IE team is struggling to get HTML 5 and SVG (2D graphics) into Internet Explorer 9. Other web browser makers have been shipping with those standards built in for years.
Apple Safari, Google Chrome, and Mozilla Firefox all run fine on Windows. Takes one mouse click to launch a different browser. Takes a year or two to see what Microsoft might do.
IE progress has consistently been glacially slow this whole decade.
No, IE does not have WebGL support now and betas from other browser makers already run it. IE9 will not catch up with contemporary web standards like WebGL, just ones that have been out for several years or more.
IE9 is not a cross platform web browser either. It will only run on certain specific versions of Microsoft Windows. Just run one of the standard web browsers and you can see what WebGL can do. Their current betas are running some impressive WebGL demos now.
As a fallback until Microsoft adds WebGL support, the Google Chrome Frame beta currently supports WebGL.
RE: WebSockets: No. The target was websocket support in IE10. Tests show that it only has partial support.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 11 months ago.
Improve this question
I'm planning a client-server product for a tiny, low-volume, high-cost vertical market. One of the components of the product will be a desktop application, simple to moderate in complexity, for data entry and uploading to a central server from remote PCs and/or Macs via SOAP. The server is a Java web app.
Customers will be choosing their platform (Windows or Mac) based on what the client app runs on, so my options are wide-open here. However, I will be developing on a Mac and have a strong allergy to MS-specific technologies (sorry). The app will not need to run on any non-desktop-computer devices and I have total freedom to say it will support X but not Y or Z without any negative consequences (quite the luxury, to be sure).
I have a lot of experience in server-side development but very little in desktop GUI stuff, and am evaluating my options on the client - basically what do I want to commit to learning over the next 6+ months. I have server-side Java experience as well as a brief dabble in iPhone development, which went OK.
Overall I'm looking for:
Ease of learning & development
IDE support
Healthy surrounding ecosystem (libraries, tools, help, etc.)
Quality documentation
My options as I see them, in rough order of how I'm currently mentally ranking them:
Java Swing
Cocoa
Java SWT
JavaFX
Adobe AIR
XULRunner
Am I leaving anything out?
If your application has to support both Windows and Macs, I would suggest you avoid using languages which need compilation. In that case, Java, Python, and CS4 will be your candidates. Personally, I would go for Java Swing since it's proven to work on a number of platforms (not flawlessly tho') without the need of extra libraries. Some people complain about Swing, but my experience with it isn't that terrible. Well, maybe it was because I don't use it for huge and complex interfaces. If you choose to go with Swing, try to see if you can hand-code the interface yourself, it isn't that terrible, but it does have a learning curve. Good luck!
If you are an experienced web developer, you can try Electron, which allows you to develop desktop apps using HTML, CSS and JS. Electron apps are cross-platform and will run on Windows, Mac and Linux.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
[This is a community Wiki so do not bother voting it down if it seems like a poll question. It is.]
Will Adobe be able to translate its success in Flash Penetration (although also questionable, see my post here) to Adobe AIR? Is Adobe AIR the "next big thing" in a desktop platform, just another player (along with what else?), or will it die a silent and unimportant death?
Unfortunately no, until they sort out, at the least, the following issue:
When you visit a site that needs Flash and you haven't got Flash installed, you get a very standard looking popup asking you if you to install it, and mentioning in the notes that it may not be safe to install an untrusted plugin.
When you visit a site that lets you download an AIR app, it pops up big red screaming warnings about the imminent trashing of your computer, the theft of your identity and a life of torment[1]. Unless, of course, all the bedroom programmers decide to cough up the ongoing cost of certification.
User encouragement FAIL. Hobby developer encouragement FAIL. Technophobe terrorficiation avoidance FAIL.
I love AIR, but I don't know what they were thinking with the installer. Laywers' office moved closer to the developers' over at HQ or something?
[1]Actual message may vary.
Simple answer NO
It's not fair to compare Flash's web success with Desktop or obvious reasons.
Flash developers were already using flash to develop desktop applications and now they've got a better framework. It'll be used by so many people but I don't it ever will be that popular.
I think that AIR will be around for a long time, it is great for web geeks who want desktop versions of the web applications.
I doubt that it will ever reach mainstream appeal, the masses need flash to watch their funny YouTube videos, but they'll never think to get AIR in order to use TweetDeck. The desktop apps they use are the ones that are already installed on their machine.
If AIR has improved incorporation of HTML content, it will be very successful.
If the ability to render HTML content has not been improved, then my humble opinion is that it will be mixed.
No.
The competition on desktop application market is much bigger, and users are expectiong more functionality and performance from desktop application than from web application, and AIR is just not there yet wrt performance and desktop capabilities.