misc:alternative_architecture_for_hybrid_applications
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
misc:alternative_architecture_for_hybrid_applications [2016/07/06 13:27] – [Server] mithat | misc:alternative_architecture_for_hybrid_applications [2016/07/17 03:33] – [PHP] mithat | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
This architecture does a good job of leveraging Web technologies to create secure conventional desktop apps. In addition, frameworks like Electron and NW.js have matured to the point that developing hybrid apps that use many desktop app conventions is relatively easy. | This architecture does a good job of leveraging Web technologies to create secure conventional desktop apps. In addition, frameworks like Electron and NW.js have matured to the point that developing hybrid apps that use many desktop app conventions is relatively easy. | ||
- | ===== REST-based hybrid | + | ===== A REST-based hybrid |
One alternative to the conventional hybrid approach is a REST-based architecture. A REST-based approach requires more carefully considered design but offers the potential for greater flexibility. | One alternative to the conventional hybrid approach is a REST-based architecture. A REST-based approach requires more carefully considered design but offers the potential for greater flexibility. | ||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
One obvious requirement is that the chosen language must be able to run on the target host platform. This isn't a significant issue with desktop deployment: typically, at most reconfiguring and/or rebuilding the REST server for each target platform is all that will be required. But it does currently present a problem for mobile deployment as few mobile platforms provide native support for more than one blessed development language. | One obvious requirement is that the chosen language must be able to run on the target host platform. This isn't a significant issue with desktop deployment: typically, at most reconfiguring and/or rebuilding the REST server for each target platform is all that will be required. But it does currently present a problem for mobile deployment as few mobile platforms provide native support for more than one blessed development language. | ||
- | ===== Future work ===== | + | --------------------------------------------------- |
- | ==== Server | + | |
+ | ===== Server | ||
* Create test case(s) using PHP and/or Node.js to get an idea of app responsiveness and interaction issues. | * Create test case(s) using PHP and/or Node.js to get an idea of app responsiveness and interaction issues. | ||
* Attach WebSockets, Server-sent events, long polling, or similar to determine client scalability. | * Attach WebSockets, Server-sent events, long polling, or similar to determine client scalability. | ||
- | === Notes/question | + | ==== Notes/questions/ |
* Persistence: | * Persistence: | ||
* Security model: | * Security model: | ||
Line 41: | Line 42: | ||
* Embedded (i.e., one-and-only-app) vs. desktop app | * Embedded (i.e., one-and-only-app) vs. desktop app | ||
- | === PHP === | + | ==== PHP ==== |
+ | * Attractive because it facilitates a lot of web developers get into embedded development (i.e., lots of devs know PHP very well). | ||
* What server? | * What server? | ||
+ | * Is the built-in server good enough for a limited number of connections? | ||
* Is there a native PHP server that is good enough? | * Is there a native PHP server that is good enough? | ||
* [[https:// | * [[https:// | ||
Line 50: | Line 53: | ||
* Can " | * Can " | ||
- | The above are not issues for embedded application as the machine' | + | The above are not issues for embedded application as the machine' |
* Frameworks | * Frameworks | ||
* Silex | * Silex | ||
+ | * Good community support. | ||
+ | * Good Composer and module support. | ||
+ | * Documentation is a bit obtuse. | ||
+ | * Out of the box twig support. Redbean support is available. | ||
+ | * Has a good ReST code structure but you wouldn' | ||
* Slim | * Slim | ||
+ | * Slim 3 has removed some functionality that might be good to have. | ||
* Fat Free Framework | * Fat Free Framework | ||
+ | * Compact, more than what's needed. | ||
+ | * Excellent ReST code structure. | ||
+ | * Twig and Redbean support are available. | ||
+ | * Not sure Composer is well supported. | ||
+ | * Check cookies/ | ||
* Persistence | * Persistence | ||
* Redbean | * Redbean | ||
Line 61: | Line 75: | ||
* [[http:// | * [[http:// | ||
- | ==== Client | + | ==== Node.js |
- | | + | |
- | | + | * There is also a " |
- | - If served, by a separate server or by the same server that's handling | + | * Frameworks |
+ | | ||
+ | * Persistence | ||
+ | * My [[http://nodejs-configfile.saved.io/ | ||
+ | * My [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Python ==== | ||
+ | * Python is attractive because RPi developers will know it. | ||
+ | * Flask and Flask-RESTful are a good combination. | ||
+ | * Has a development | ||
+ | * Has the " | ||
+ | * Config files and sqlite are TODO. | ||
+ | ===== Client ===== | ||
+ | * To be served or simply loaded from file? | ||
+ | * I suspect the former is better because of security/ | ||
+ | * If served, by a separate server or by the same server that's handling the API? | ||
misc/alternative_architecture_for_hybrid_applications.txt · Last modified: 2016/07/22 21:42 by mithat