Thanks. Do you know if the RO SDK will be supporting https connections? That would
be my ideal. Indeed, little point otherwise.

I guess I should go to ask them. If anyone has a pointer to where this is properly
being discussed, please let me know. Thanks.

/Matthew Jones/

I've only tested RO so no production experience but as i recall they use
3rd party components underneath - Indy or Synapse in case of HTTP server
so answer would be yes.

Raul

On 7/25/2012 12:22 PM, (Matthew Jones) wrote:
> Thanks. Do you know if the RO SDK will be supporting https connections? That would
> be my ideal. Indeed, little point otherwise.
>
> I guess I should go to ask them. If anyone has a pointer to where this is properly
> being discussed, please let me know. Thanks.
>
> /Matthew Jones/
>

Mathew,

Took a peek at RemObjects. I have been using IntraWeb, which does this
stuff, almost from its inception and, honestly, I don't need yet another
expensive library add-on. I'm actually looking at Tim's product as
potentially a way of simplifying development life here. We'll see.

Appreciate the reference, however.

Jerry

"Matthew Jones" <matthew@matthew-jones.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20120725114626.5384H@nothanks.nothanks.co.uk...
>I which case, have a look at RemObjects SDK. It is able to handle client
>state for
> you, and also lifetime etc. The only issue I have with it at the moment is
> that I
> always encrypt the channels, but the JSON interface currently isn't. It is
> all new
> though, so I expect it will come.
>
> /Matthew Jones/

I downloaded two papers on REST and will look at it.

Jerry

"Matthew Jones" <matthew@matthew-jones.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20120724114402.5384D@nothanks.nothanks.co.uk...
> What he said. A colleague said that we should do a new system we were
> building
> using the REST system. Seemed rather limited to me, but at the end it was
> perfect.
> No state is held on the server, and that also makes it very scalable. It
> is all
> very protectable too, so you can pass in passwords etc (we only allow
> https to
> enforce SSL) to make sure that every call can be validated.
>
> My advice is to forget about "low level table access" and instead create
> an
> interface using REST. It will serve you better long term (we now have
> desktop,
> phone and EWB apps talking to the same REST interface).
>
> /Matthew Jones/

Hi Matthew

See this discussion
http://connect.remobjects.com/discussion/comment/6608#Comment_6608 under
"RemobjectsSDK for Javascript and Encryption"

Here's a link discussing problems in JS cryptography
http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography

Cheers, Bob




On 25/07/2012 17:22, (Matthew Jones) wrote:
> Thanks. Do you know if the RO SDK will be supporting https connections? That would
> be my ideal. Indeed, little point otherwise.
>
> I guess I should go to ask them. If anyone has a pointer to where this is properly
> being discussed, please let me know. Thanks.
>
> /Matthew Jones/
>

TVM - will have to make sure I renew my SDK subscription!

/Matthew Jones/

RO SDK and IntraWeb are very different. But sure, you want to review the options
and choose what works for you.

/Matthew Jones/

Jerry,

If you're planning to use the EWB and especially TDataset functionality
then you have most of the (boring) work of retrieving and parsing and
loading data from server already taken care of.

Also using something like basic REST like architecture on your web
server with the EWB JSON makes the server side fairly straightforward.
Ot if all you need is table access then use the dbsrvr.

I looked at RO as well a whole back and did not really see any need (and
to go thru another learning curve). It for sure has its uses but at this
point we're sticking with REST/JSON web server on server side and EWB on
client and its working out quite well.

Raul



On 7/25/2012 1:35 PM, Jerry Clancy wrote:
> Mathew,
>
> Took a peek at RemObjects. I have been using IntraWeb, which does this
> stuff, almost from its inception and, honestly, I don't need yet another
> expensive library add-on. I'm actually looking at Tim's product as
> potentially a way of simplifying development life here. We'll see.
>
> Appreciate the reference, however.
>
> Jerry

Raul,

I agree on RO. Had to focus on running the company rather than development
yesterday and today (the bloody legislators came back today), so haven't had
time to finish the REST papers I have. Stateless would be a problem for me
but implementing session logic around the apps on the server side wouldn't
be a very big deal for me. Most of the code is already there, as these are
Intraweb apps that have been around a long time. I'm going to try to convert
one to EWB if time allows.

Jerry

"Raul" <raul@removethis.raul.ca> wrote in message
news:D802BF40-4B63-4727-B8FA-6ECE2B63672F@news.elevatesoft.com...
> Jerry,
>
> If you're planning to use the EWB and especially TDataset functionality
> then you have most of the (boring) work of retrieving and parsing and
> loading data from server already taken care of.
>
> Also using something like basic REST like architecture on your web server
> with the EWB JSON makes the server side fairly straightforward. Ot if all
> you need is table access then use the dbsrvr.
>
> I looked at RO as well a whole back and did not really see any need (and
> to go thru another learning curve). It for sure has its uses but at this
> point we're sticking with REST/JSON web server on server side and EWB on
> client and its working out quite well.
>
> Raul