什么时候应该构建 Web 应用程序而不是胖客户端？
我想听听其他人关于何时应该构建 Web 应用程序而不是构建胖客户端的建议。
在过去的几年中，我参与了多次关于是否应该使用 Web 浏览器界面构建应用程序（或升级旧应用程序）的讨论。 通常这些是组织内使用的内部系统，而不是大众市场的收缩包装产品，而且它们实际上并不在公共互联网上。 但我不想将讨论仅限于这些类型的应用程序。
在某些明显的情况下，应用程序应该是其中之一（例如，没有基于网络的视频编辑软件）。 另一方面，Javascript 库正在使浏览器中更丰富的体验变得更容易实现。
Javascript 库和先进的服务器端技术是否可以在客户端轻松实现右键单击上下文菜单、拖放等操作？ 在什么时候，为网络编写的额外复杂性会覆盖易于部署和跨平台兼容性等好处，特别是如果您不尝试创建下一个 Stack Overflow，而只是构建内部应用程序？
内部应用程序拥有有限且固定的受众这一事实是否或多或少地克服了对胖客户端可以提供的改进可用性的任何担忧？
I would like to hear other people's advice on when one should build a web application versus building a thick client.
Over the last few years, I have participated in several discussions about whether an application should be built (or an old application upgraded) with a web browser interface. Usually these were internal systems used within an organization, not mass-market shrink-wrap products, and they were not actually on the public Internet. I do not want to limit the discussion to these types of applications solely though.
There are obvious cases where an application should be one or the other (e.g. no web based video editing software). On the other hand, Javascript libraries are making more rich experiences in the browser less difficult to implement everyday.
Have Javascript libraries and advanced server side technologies made things such as right-click context menus, drag and drop, etc. doable on the client side without a large effort? At what point does the extra complexity of writing for the web override the benefits such as ease of deployment and cross-platform compatibility, particularly if you are not trying to create the next Stack Overflow, but instead just building an internal application?
Does the fact that an internal application has a limited and captive audience more or less override any concerns over improved usability that a thick client can provide?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
当我不想：
- 支持一千个环境，每个环境都有自己的怪癖时，我会使用 Web 应用程序。具体来说，病毒、木马、软件干扰，并使其在任何地方都一样工作。
- 担心应用升级和接听大量电话
- 处理丢失数据的客户
当每笔交易的计算量很大或存在大量数据时，我会选择胖客户端每笔交易的转账。
我喜欢通过一次升级解决每个人的问题。 它可能并不适合所有人，但它是我和我工作的人的生活质量提高的地方。 让一个网络应用程序在几种不同的浏览器上运行可能比在不同条件下运行大量不同的操作系统更容易。
随着 Flex/Air 的出现，您可以在浏览器中提供完整的应用程序体验。 浏览器正在成为通用界面，无论是安装在本地还是在云端。
网络应用程序也有其缺点。 我只是更有动力去构建网络应用程序，因为我选择的项目的优点似乎超过了缺点。
I go Web app when I don't want to:
- be supporting a thousand environments each with their own quirks. Specifically, viruses, trojans, software interfering, and making it work the same everywhere.
- worry about applying upgrades and taking lots of calls
- dealing with clients who lose their data
I pick a thick client when the computation is intensive per transaction, or there is significant data transfer per transaction.
I like fixing everyone's problems with one upgrade. It might not be for everyone, but it's where the quality of my life and those I work for goes up. Making a web app work on a few different browsers may be easier than a ton of different operating systems in different conditions.
With the advent of Flex/Air you can provide an entire application experience in the browser. The browser is becoming the universal interface, whether it's installed locally or in the cloud.
Web apps have their cons too. I just am more motivated to build web apps as the pro's seem to outweigh the cons for the projects I am choosing.
我相信我们仍然处于这样的阶段：除非有理由让它成为一个 Web 应用程序，否则它应该是一个本地应用程序（厚）。 当它应该是一个网络应用程序时，这是显而易见的。 我最讨厌的一点是，它应该是一个网络应用程序，除非它明显应该是本地的。 我不认为我们已经到了企业愿意让员工依赖于他们无法控制的 Web 应用程序的地步。 当谈到公司内部的应用程序时，我相信数据移动、安全性和部署/升级是做出决定的关键因素。
应用程序出现在网络上的几个关键原因。
使用厚应用程序的几个原因：
I believe we are still at the point where unless there is a reason for it to be a Web app it should be a local application (thick). It is obvious when it should be a web app. A pet peeve of mine is the thought that it should be a web app unless it's obvious it should be local. I don't believe we are at the point where enterprises are willing to have their employees dependent on web applications outside of their control. When it comes to apps internal to a company I believe movement of data, security, and deployment/upgrades are the key factors in deciding.
A couple of key reasons for an app to be on the web.
A few reasons to use thick apps:
我记得部署非基于 Web 的内部应用程序的糟糕日子的事情：
总是至少有一台计算机的设置差异很大，导致升级无法进行。 有时更多，并且每台无法工作的机器的问题都不同。
总是有用户拒绝安装升级，直到管理层强制（通常是几周或几个月后）。 由于新的业务规则没有得到执行，这有时会导致数据出现问题。
Things I remember from the bad old days of deploying internal applications that weren't web-based:
There was always a minimum of one computer that was set up so differntly that the upgrade wouldn't work. Sometimes more and the problem was different for each machine that wouldn't work.
There was always a user who refused to install the upgrade until forced to by management (usually several weeks or months later). This ended up causing problems in the data at times becasue new businesss rules were not enforced.