Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
HTML5 client use case
#1
I know there are lots of people waiting on a non-windows supported solution. Hopefully HTML5 will work out but wanted to highlight there are 2 use cases for such client to be adopted successfully.

  1. People that pull out their phone to turn on a light, open garage, or turn on music,etc
        Want to have a single app click to get to a main controller screen.
  2. People that have a wall mounted interface.
         Have interface up 24x7, want stability, kiosk feel and probably some more advanced interaction like touch scrolling.
Can't wait to see what you come up with.
_______________
Denon 3808ci, 2112ci , SONOS, Russound CAA66,Z-Wave(Lights,Locks), Hue, SmartThings,
iPads,Tivo,Hikvision,Elk-M1,iTunes,TED5000,Somfy RTS blinds, Amazon Echo, Google Home, Polk XRT12,
Honeywell Wi-Fi 9000 & Caleo Wi-Fi Thermostats, Rainmachine
Reply
#2
The Windows IV will always be the best thing for #2, always. The RIVA client ported to the Web Server will be just like the existing RIVA clients wrt to interactions. They can't do smooth scrolling like the IV does, just due to the nature of the protocol. That will require a 'fat' HTML5 client. And even then it won't likely match the the IV overall because the browser is just a vastly more limited environment.
Dean Roddey
Software Geek Extraordinaire
Reply
#3
(06-04-2017, 09:30 AM)Dean Roddey Wrote: The Windows IV will always be the best thing for #2, always. The RIVA client ported to the Web Server will be just like the existing RIVA clients wrt to interactions. They can't do smooth scrolling like the IV does, just due to the nature of the protocol. That will require a 'fat' HTML5 client. And even then it won't likely match the the IV overall because the browser is just a vastly more limited environment.

Dean - I am not sure I understand why you are referring to the protocol and graphics performance as limitation. Granted maybe 10 years ago was true, but today?
And for a local wall mounted non-windows device that is on the same wired or wireless network as the server, it must not be the issue of bandwidth or processing power.

In my understanding the concept behind an "HTML5" client is to make it system agnostic, ie. the same client code could work on iOS, android, or other operating systems.

So why not porting the existing windows IV to other platforms? You may have seen it as no return on investment when Windows was ~95% of desktop but that is changing. Being stuck in what was the design architecture at the time CQC was conceived perhaps needs rethinking.

It is coming down to choices: I am OK to need windows for running CQC master server and not asking for change there. In the past there where supported (quasi) native clients that used the RIVA and had limitations compared to windows IV. They have now been abandoned and not being actively developed. 
Previously you stated that the upcoming HTML5 client will solve this. The mentioned v2 driver requirement to be based on the autogeneration interface cases me concerns.
Or you simply come clean and say: it's windows or die!
Reply
#4
It's not 'performance', it's the development environment. Writing a program within the HTML5 environment is far more limiting than writing a native application for Android or iOS. And, for that matter, those native iOS/Android environments are nowhere near as nice and powerful as the native Windows environment is. Windows is just a very well developed, very mature, very powerful environment for application development. It makes the HTML/javascript environment look like a crayon.

And you have to understand that porting the IV to another platform would not just be a one time affair. It would be a huge weight around our neck for ever more, because it would mean replicating a huge amount of functionality on two platforms, and having to keep that in sync from there forward. There's a lot more to the IV than just drawing graphics. It includes a lot of functionality that has to exist elsewhere in the system as well, so it would end up being twice the effort. Actually far more than twice the effort, as anyone knows who has been in that situation.

And of course that effort would come at the price of lots of other stuff that people want. It would suck up a lot of time that could be put into other things. Both the initial (huge) effort and the ongoing time suckage.

Given that reality, to me it seems that there are two scenarios. There's the in home, fixed position, kiosk style client, and there's the portable client. For the former, there seems to me to be no reason not to use Windows. It's not expensive, there's an ever growing set of options for it, and it provides maximum power for those types of clients, with large screens that work well in that sort of situation.

For portable clients on the road and away from the home, or quick operations within the home, it seems to me more reasonable for that to be something that can live within the constraints of the HTML5 environment. And the RIVA environment avoids the huge replication of effort involved in a full port of the IV to another platform, and the requirement to do so using the poor tools available currently.

Longer term, there is at least the possibility of a better portable environment to become available on iOS/Android, with a .Net development environment, which mean's MS' very powerful development tools can be used to do the development. That's why we want to look at extending the life of the RIVA system for a while yet, to see what happens on this front. If we can get a more realistic, powerful and portable development environment, then it will be far easier to justify doing a portable 'fat' client, with more of the functionality handled on the client side.

I was originally going to do a room config based client first, because we needed something in the meantime. But, after more investigation, it seems like it's going to be possible to do a RIVA client within the HTML5 environment. That'll still be a bit of a challenge for such a limited environment, but doable. And that means our current status quo can be maintained until such time as it becomes more practical to take another step along the portable client direction. We won't lose the ability to have your CQC templates available on your portable devices in the meantime if we have get a new viable RIVA client.
Dean Roddey
Software Geek Extraordinaire
Reply
#5
Dean, thanks! your reply was helpful.
your responsiveness and support is comparable to none, and your work here well documented, so if you say it is a lot of work to port the IV to other non-windows platform and maintain it, I accept it.
so I hear you loud and clear for IV: windows it is, and nothing but windows.
it is a first time I hear about extending the RIVA with an HTML5 client, and this sounds promising. Could use existing or specifically dedicated templates. would also work with autogenerated stuff.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Some basic docs on the WebRIVA client Dean Roddey 2 313 08-07-2017, 07:19 AM
Last Post: Dean Roddey
  New room config based HTML client Dean Roddey 71 8,345 03-14-2017, 07:40 PM
Last Post: lleo
  client driver error after upgrade to 4.8.1 batwater 1 977 12-31-2015, 11:39 AM
Last Post: Dean Roddey
  RIVA Server and Client DaveB 1 755 02-18-2013, 07:32 PM
Last Post: DaveB
  Trouble Upgrading Client to v4.1.901 sic0048 7 1,357 03-24-2012, 02:46 AM
Last Post: sic0048
  Installation gives me no Admin client. beelzerob 9 2,032 05-21-2008, 10:35 AM
Last Post: Dean Roddey

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)