RE: xforms processors

Joe,

Server side validation and workflow can not be eliminated. However, with a
client side validation, round trips to the server could be minimized,
eventually improving performance at server side and increasing the response
time at client side. But, this is a more of a concern for internet
applications. For corporate/intranet applications, if the same XForms client
is deployed, one can trust its validations for more efficient processing.

Regards,
Shailesh Karandikar 
Ext:#2086


-----Original Message-----
From: joern turner [mailto:joern.turner@web.de]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:36 AM
To: Jagannayakam
Cc: www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Re: xforms processors



Jagannayakam wrote:
> Hi Rob , 
> I think Forms player works as a renderer . To display a html form that has
> xform tags. But if the user updates something and submits again the
request
> goes in the form of name&value pairs am i right . 
> 
> For me i have to talk to xml inteface. So there should be a processor on
the
> client side that changes these name values pair to xml . Thus requires a
> processor in the server side. 
> So when we have a server side processor  there is no seperate need of a
> client side processor. 
try http://chiba.sourceforge.net. Though not yet complete it's used in 
different commercial project with success. Chiba transcodes your XForms 
into html and gives you some xml to work with.

btw, there another strong argument for a server-side component: 
server-side validation. - what about all that wonderful xforms 
validation stuff after your form is sumbitted via the internet? will you 
really work with only client-side validated input? - just a thougth, but 
IMO a serious problem for the pure client-side approach.

Regards,

Joern Turner
> 
> Correct me if i am wrong.
> 
> Regards,
> Jagan.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Bull [mailto:rob.bull@blackdog.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: www-forms@w3.org; Jagannayakam
> Subject: Re: xforms processors
> 
> 
> Jagan,
> 
> I haven't used any of the server side processors, but on the client side
> have used "FormsPlayer" (http://www.FormsPlayer.com/) with some excellent
> results, and am currently working with an in-house ActiveX dll written as
a
> client side component (written in VB it uses the IE "HTC" architecture and
> therefore sits very comfortably with style sheets, and can easily be
> customised for non-compliant extensions to the xForm specification).
> 
> It is my belief that client side processing makes better use of the xForm
> features such as relevance checking and instance validation with schema
> without "bothering" the server. I don't fully understand why so many
> companies put more processing power on every desktop than  NASA used to
get
> to the moon, then overload a couple of servers with all their
applications.
> 
> We are currently testing a pre-release version of a drag and draw xForm
> compliant forms designer, some details of which and some screen-shots can
be
> found at http://www.blackdog.co.uk
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jagannayakam" <jagannayakam@aztec.soft.net>
> To: "Www-Forms (E-mail)" <www-forms@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:34 AM
> Subject: xforms processors
> 
> 
> |
> | Hi ,
> |
> |  I am looking for some of the xforms processors .
> |
> | I came across following processors -
> |
> | FormFaces   from progeny
> | OXF  from orbeon
> | IBM XML form package
> |
> |
> | I wanted to know the following
> | * whether All these can be plugged into any web servers ?
> | * Have anybody used any of the above processors or any other ?
> | * In any case what is configuration required ?
> |
> |
> | Regards,
> | Jagan.
> |
> |
> |
> 
> 




**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

**********************************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 09:16:41 UTC