Someone should start a thread for all the “workarounds” required to replace the features lost in the move to Web 2.0. Many of us in the “silent majority” relied on these features.
1 Like
This should really be done on git, wiki or an issues thread as older posts near the top of the forum thread end up stale or out of date and it soon takes a lot of effort to trawl through many posts to find pertinent info without regular reposts to summarise the current information. If someone starts the thread and takes ownership of posting regular updates, this can become onerous if that person takes a break or a holiday.
1 Like
A pile of workarounds in a forum thread won’t be as effective as creating, commenting and voting specific cases in Issues.
Otherwise, people will end up using workarounds that aren’t needed anymore, doing more harm than good.
The community is already doing an impressive effort preparing cases and I’m personally thankful for that.
6 Likes
Web 2.0 is moving forward, but until then, the best “workaround” for me, is to stay on Web1 
As for the compilation of workarounds, Ricardo is right, using hacks to have basic functionality is dangerous, could break on each release and cause hard to track problems later on
3 Likes
Thanks Ivan. I agree with you. I was being facetious. There should be no need for workarounds for features we already had and relied upon for a decade. I would stick with Xojo Web 1.0 if it supported Apple Silicon. That’s my only real deal breaker. Everything else works! And yes there are unaddressed bugs, but they are few and far between and after working with the product for ten years I know where they are and simply avoid those potholes.
My point is and always will be Web 2.0 is a DIFFERENT product and not a replacement for Web 1.0. I’ve taught many of my client’s “citizen developers” to support and enhance my Xojo Web 1.0 apps. No CSS and very limited Javascript make that possible. No doubt many of the active developers on this forum need and want a product like Web 2.0. But for the “silent majority” who are not so vocal on these forums the loss of Web 1.0 is devastating!
3 Likes
I haven’t used either of the web products, yet. But can someone explain what the major differences between the two technologies that Xojo had versus what they switched to? The rationale for the change and rewrite (without starting a flame war, if that is possible?)
The best way to SEE the differences is to download both and take a look. The last Web 1.0 version was in Xojo 2019r3.2 which can be downloaded from the Xojo archive here:
https://xojo.com/download/archives.php
Make sure you select “Use built-in documentation” so you’ll be looking at the docs for that version.
Compare the available features (events, properties, and methods) for various controls in both versions, then try and create something. Designing a UI in Web 1.0 is almost WYSIWYG, fonts, graphics, controls look very much in the IDE like what you’ll see in the browser. I will agree that the way you work with styles in Web 1.0 is a bit kludgy but the fact that it’s WYSIWYG makes it well worth dealing with, especially if you’re organized about things. On the other hand in Web 2.0 you’ll be dealing with CSS files and JavaScript to get what you want and it’s not WYSIWYG. BTW you can use JavaScript and direct CSS instructions in Web 1.0 if you need to. But you don’t HAVE too.
As an experiment try setting the row height of a web listbox in Web 2.0 (without reverting to JavaScript). Or try creating a control group (something I use quite a lot in data entry forms, especially when I have to deal with multiple languages). Those features don’t exist in Web 2.0 but have been part of Web 1.0 for over ten years now.
Like I suggest, download and try both versions and let us know what YOU think. They can be opened and run simultaneously so it’s easy to compare.
Bottom line, to be fair they are both good products. But they are very different and each target a very different group of developers. Again, give them both a try and let us know what you think.
2 Likes
I posted a bunch of workarounds for Web 1.00 in these past years. Most of them can be applied to Web 2.00, but the question should be “do I really need this”.
Web 2.00 is inspired by current web sites, and for instance using the keyboard to navigate the WebListBox is much less frequent than in Web 1.00 which mimicked Desktop.
A year ago I went through something similar with my websites. The old CMS has nice properties. In the new version of the CMS I have to define almost everything myself. It took me 4 weeks to port everything to the new CMS. The editor in the new version of the CMS has a really clever way to abstract CSS. But I still needed to know what to do. It took me like 3 tries to get the §$%& header to work in different sizes. But the end result was worth it. Yes, CSS sucks but it’s really powerful.
I keep seeing the term “websites” here. Xojo has never been a tool to develop “websites”. Most of my Xojo Web 1.0 applications target small workgroups of less than fifty people. Prior to Xojo Web these were Desktop apps but Web 1.0 opened these workgroups up to a whole new world of IT flexibility. These are not small companies, many of whom dipped their toe into this cloud fanaticism years ago but are now repatriating back to on-prem operations. ITT says over 70% of fortune 1000 companies are planning repatriation back to on-prem because all these cloud based “website” applications became too expensive and too hard to manage. Why Xojo is “bringing up the rear” with Web 2.0 (trying to be “websites”) instead of creating good solid easy-to-use, easy-to-support web applications I’ll just never understand. Leading has always been the way to success, not following a trend that is quickly becoming passe’.
2 Likes
I don’t develop “websites”. I develop easy-to-create, easy-to-use web apps!
1 Like
You should definitely stick to Web 1.00.
1 Like
That’s what I’ve been saying. Web 1.0 and web 2.0 are very different products for vastly different users. Don’t eliminate a Screwdriver and replace it with a Saw and tell the longtime proponents of your screwdriver that it’s is a positive move. It’s not!
3 Likes
My opinion differ.
This is a good idea. And to avoid people keep using workaround when the bug is removed, an [ANN] in the Thread will do the trick.
The above is far better than “how can I do that” and reinvent the wheel.
Of course, there is the plugin solution, but this is dangerous for Xojo. After some times users may be tempted to watch elsewhere if the grasss is greener somewhere…
When Xojo integrates plugin creation inside Xojo there needs to be a community repository of addons/workarounds/additions so things can be improved while Xojo improve/catchup. Open source mods should be integrated into Xojo over time. Xojo will have it in the bag if they can catch Web2 up to Web1 capabilities and more
1 Like
Yeah, things will be great if the New Tool ever has the capabilities the Old Tool had for ten years. 
Web 1.00 did require quite a bit of javascript and CSS to do a lot of things.
But I think there is another misunderstanding about Web 2.00: it is not meant to mimic desktop. So there are things in Web 1.00 that would not make sense in Web 2.00.
1 Like
And that’s my point. Many of our business users are tired of all these website-like applications. Just saying.
I started programming back in 1982. Back then, it was mostly business.
I started HTML/Perl web sites back in 1996. Back then, web apps were not that many.
Today, web style interface have spread toward mobile, and desktop. Worst offender being Windows 8/8.1. Yet, Windows Design Guidelines still are profoundly influenced by web design.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/basics/
We, old time users, could forget that today’s users are mostly grown on mobile and web. They don’t expect the old desktop metaphor.
Business users today may appreciate desktop style web apps. But it is probably generational. Soon enough, newcomers will request more web like design.
Xojo Web 1.00 is still supported Yes, We Still Support Your Web 1.0 Projects – Xojo Programming Blog
That said, Web 1.00 was created at a time when it seemed like a good idea to bring desktop to web.
Xojo has to look to the future. That is where Web 2.00 comes to be.
1 Like
I strongly disagree. Great applications don’t need to look like websites now or in the future. Facebook even had to move away from the website look on mobile. That’s why they created React Native. A good mobile app shouldn’t necessarily be website-like, in fact they work and look much better if they’re not.