Hey Ricardo! Long time no read. Ok… so I should drop my Twitter killer app idea, bummer 
Glad to see you have found Web 2.0 usable, I know at first you were less than excited about it.
1 Like
Quite a big thing. Should be fixed according to FB. Hope it wil make it for the next version to come.
Hi Hector.
Will I or won’t I use Web2, Short answer - No. I write for LAN and WAN use that are more akin to webized desktop applications. Not to build websites or mobile phone apps. I see and acknowledge the benefits of API 2 and have begun to upgrade and change code accordingly in R19.1.
My question therefor is very simple, can we have both as separate components of Xojo. One where styles are and layout are in the hands of the designer [Web1] and the other where page real estate is not an issue and corporate themes more of a requirement.
If Covid has taught industry, especially areas that interact with ‘Joe Public’, anything it is there is a lot to be gained from being able to fire up a vanilla PC and quickly link with all required IT, using a Xojo built Web Browser linking only to XoJo built webized applications.
PS. I will be renewing my Pro licence this year
1 Like
Trouble is some features which may be needed for web1 are in web2, while some which may be needed for web2 are only in web1, and sometimes neither. It’s a matter of matching the tool to the project and IMHO web2 is competitive with Web1 on some things at the moment yet not others.
BUT support for Web1 is presently minimal so there’s no future in starting Web1 projects now. This is a real shame because Google’s interface style guide suits async internet whereas PC style apps work fine with Web1 on the lan and are actually better for the corporate environment IMHO. They are completely different products I think and should be marketed that way.
However life goes on. So we are about to start a Web2 project and run it in a Web1 iFrame. This is how we plan to transition, because it looks like being years before we could make a full migration.
If it’s the freedom that WebStyles provided is a missing piece for you, I built a convertor for Web1 to Web2 which outputs the Object.Style code or creates GraffitiStyles which can be applied practically anywhere in Web2.
More or less, the “desktop app” experience in Web 2.0 is the same as it was in Web 1.0 at present. Much of what you’ll build is still fixed position.
2 Likes
That is what attracted me to Web 1 early on and why I initially used it at work until things changed at work in a way that made it impractical.
Web 2 is not an evolution of Web 1 IMO… They are essentially 2 very different products.
The Web 2 philosophy is very different from Web 1 and it is aimed primarily a different use case and a different type of customer IMO. That philosophy makes it not nearly as attractive for people like me.
-Karen
2 Likes
To be honest it was because I didn’t want to get involved in HTML at all was what attracted me to Xojo Web all those years ago. It was a desktop experience on the intranet. Graffitti suite might be an answer for many however today we do a server side /client side-rendering combo - something completely different to standard web apps.
And let me just say I think UX programming today is harder than it was 25 years ago and often less functional for users, because of all the HTML/CSS/JavaScript complexity. It’s become so UNIXified that every framework is now a separate target. Witness: Xojo Web1 and Web2 transition pain - just like moving from Mac to iOS. And I wonder how long will the underlying HTML/CSS/JavaScript target framework last in terms of buzz appeal? I think by the time we are ready to move to Web 2 the next HTML-thingy will have come along. It really is a moving target much faster than hardware-based UIs.
1 Like
Yes, and that’s a challenge for Xojo, isn’t it?
And I believe they are facing it quite well, specifically by using a “stable” framework like bootstrap, rather than something fancy but obsolete in a few months.
All what you are saying is right, but it is true for other tools as well, often with the negative impact that you have to maintain changes on the “backbone” to keep your solution up and running. I think in these regards, Xojo Web2 is doing a good job, as it is easy to get your solution pushed to a server. Can it solve all the ideas for web one might have in mind? Nope. But I don’t think that’s concept or the idea behind it.
Good points Jeannot.
I remember about 25 years ago I could write a reusable control in VB6 which we used like Web1 containers. Web1 succeeded where VB failed largely because for the most part it nicely abstracted HTTP/HTML/CSS/JavaScript and was not client-side native code - even though a bit shaky in places there are workarounds - it is native to the Web but comparable to VB6 and in many ways superior language wise. Java applets on the other hand turned out to be write once debug everywhere. So Xojo Web1 is the last one standing.
However the transition between Web frameworks has been very tough, with Web2 container support still wanting, unable to hold a candle to VB6 in terms of developer usability. Xojo Inc. has likewise prolonged its native code version of Feedback - a very ambitions Web project under any circumstances. As for other vendors, this is a plague on all houses, and Xojo Inc has by far the most relevant experience to deal with it for us. And I have no doubt the competition will be skewed towards their walled garden$. They don’t interest me at all.
But I feel there is a deeper Web1 v Web 2 issue afoot to which I referred. As far as I can tell, responsive web designed is used mainly for sales and marketing purposes - landing pages mainly. Web1 is used mainly for information capture which it does well enough (with some third-party help) thanks to its containers. So what’s the business case for custom Web development in sales and marketing? How many custom-code devs will benefit from responsive web design and for how long will it remain trendy?
My gut feeling is in 5 years time Web2 development will be for much the same sorts of things as Web 1 development is today. But of course picking winners is a fool’s game. Xojo Inc may know something I don’t which will make Web2 a game-changer.
But from what I remember (memorability is a valid marketing measure) Web2 promised an open door to open source controls, an easier SDK, a more robust architecture and responsive design support. But it’s been a mammoth development cycle for Xojo Inc and responsive design may not be good beyond sales and marketing outfits.
In any case, we have to work with what we’ve got today, which is why the OP’s question is so valid. Mashups between them in Divs or iFrames might be a way forward for my company’s existing projects.
Web 2 supports responsive design which would require a lot more work in Web 1.00. Today, over 60% of sales on Amazon are done in the mobile app. That says a lot about users demand.
More and more users prefer using their phone rather than a desktop client. Supporting the widely fragmented landscape with Web 1.00 is close to impossible.
I have developed web apps since the dawn of WWW. Although I am comfortable with CSS/JavaScript/Php/Perl and other stuff, none of them offers the RAD and ease of use of Xojo Web 2.00. Sure, you can get the very same result in the end, but you will have to juggle between languages and tools.
By all means, look at the other tools available. You will soon get much more regard for Xojo’s efforts.
5 Likes
Hello Michel,
I have and I do. If only Xojo could put more effort into Web 2.0 and fix some of the bugs/issues and implement basic functionality that should have shipped from day one I would be a happy Web 2.0 camper.
2 Likes
But is that a realistic market for xojo to get penetration?
Just as for VB on the desktop I suspect Web 1 was used by may citizen developers primarily for use with in-house accessed by PC/Macs on an intranet
And for that many of things that those who want to use Xojo Web for more public facing websites/apps see as issues with Web1 are strengths for that use case…And I suspect overtime that usage would see a lot more Xojo licenses than the former even if the former makes a lot of money for a few licensees…
-Karen
1 Like
Except Web2.0 doesn’t currently support responsive design. I have had to hack it into both frameworks and while I’ll admit it’s easier in Web2.0 to do so, it’s no where near a simple WYSIWYG editor that users should expect. Also not being able to control the “embed within” location to specify the DOM order makes laying out responsive containers dynamically very painful at the moment.
Hopefully this is all in the pipeline to get fixed of course
8 Likes
Thank you, I already thought I missed something 
Exactly. Others products are good too, and their some fantastic frameworks out there. But my experience is that though they work fine on a sample project they all get easily and quickly “complex”. You need a menu? Okay let’s read another tutorial. You need a quick database query? Okay how does this now work with a different database than their standard. Ok, there are many “bridges” for postgres, now let’s spent 3 days evaluating which one is the best? You need to update the framework for one functionality as suggested upon your research? Okay, how does this work? Next tutorial … works perfectly and was easy, but hey why is this customer now complaining that a certain functionality doesn’t work again …
Yes, as you and I have said already a few times: They are close, but I’m waiting as well for the last mile and some improvements. Of course, like everyone here, I am a burned child that sometimes improvements take a long time, but I am very optimistic that Xojo also knows what needs to be optimized, especially for their feedback app.
Many of the open feedback cases are likely to be the reason that the feedback app is also delayed. Less the responsive design, but the memory leakages and the WebFileUploader for instance, should also be a current hindrance for the FC app.
Probably true, but at least my customers are heavily using tablets these days on their intranet. They are very happy with the “larger” buttons, but a further argument to endorse @Brock_Nash and my requirement for better responsiveness features. Responsiveness will not magically help on very big Listbox etc. and it is okay if you need then to scroll the screen on a smaller device, but many of my webpages would benefit a lot by having a responsive layout (every login screen for instance ).
1 Like
Well, Xojo is already using an outdated release of bootstrap. 4.4 from 2019. It did not updated to 4.5, nor 4.6 and even when the 5.0 preview was available for a long time, and now released, it is not like it to be used in xojo any time soon. 
2 Likes
Outdated is always relative. Many Xojo users might not endorse a current move to Bootstrap 5. Higher release number indeed, but relatively small changes under the hood.
Here are some reasons why you would want to stick to Bootstrap 4 in your current projects:
- Your project needs support for IE 10 and IE 11.
- Your project is dependent on jQuery and you don’t need new features of Bootstrap 5.
- You are already using Bootstrap 4 and don’t want to accommodate new breaking changes of Bootstrap 5 yet.
2 Likes
Xojo does NOT suppor any IE 
That is just a decision, not really an impediment
Just weighing in with my own use-case observations…
I purchased Xojo web Licenses from 2013 until 2019r1.1
I have no intention of purchasing a new license, for now, because:-
(a) 19r1.1 does everything that I (and my clients) require - and it does it quite well.
(b) Web API 2.0 cannot be used to build apps that are remotely similar to my existing ones (at least, not without extra knowledge of JS / CSS / HTML - which was the whole reason why I bought into Xojo originally).
The question of responsive design is interesting. Some of my clients needed me to build mobile responsive versions of legacy web apps - and I did not find that issue to be particularly difficult in Web 1.0. There are ways to do it. Sure, they involve a bit of coding work, but the look and feel of both Desktop and Mobile renderings is completely within the dev’s control. End result satisfies the client / users, and coding time was pretty quick.
I am not saying that Web 2.0 is a bad product - but it’s simply not a suitable tool for me.
However, my hope is that Xojo will develop Web 2.0 into a tool that CAN replace Web 1.0 (add back in all the missing control classes / properties / events) - then it will be an awesome tool that I will be happy to buy into.
The truth is, that for many bespoke web app use-cases, 19r1.1 is actually damn good!! (IMO)
For those who want a fast, template driven, consumer facing, mobile responsive “web shop” - there’s loads of easy tools, like Wix / Shopify / etc - but I’m not sure that is the target audience for Xojo. However, Web 2.0 kinda feels that’s where they are headed…
5 Likes
Web 2.0 is indeed a different beast. It is not yet mature enough to match Web 1.0 in certain areas. There are still bugs or functionality shortfalls that need to be addressed. I have used it on a large test application (I still maintain the production version of the test application with 2019 R3.1) since the first beta. Web 2.0 has come a long, long way since then. For example, 2021 R1.1 delivered a two-fold speed increase loading certain more complex pages, through various improvements that I could not specifically pinpoint. I suspect that JSON improvements played a good part in the improvement. Web 2.0 is nearing the point where I can consider switching to web 2.0 for productive applications.
I am absolutely not a CSS king or a JS expert, and not a fan of this approach. However, using online resources, a CSS editor application (and many, many hours initially) and yes some JS (I must thank many people on this forum for sharing tips in this area), I designed a theme that comes very close to the design that I had in web 1.0, through multiple styles. My test application is definitely not an eye candy kind of application. Think ERP-like instead.
2019 R3.1 ( any web 1.0, actually), will reach a point where it is not viable any longer. Some bugs were recently reported or discussed on the forum, that will not be corrected. Changes in browser technology will break the applications suddenly. Not today, probably not tomorrow. But sooner than we’d like. It is only prudent to prepare for that day. We cannot beat Web 2.0. I say, let’s join them instead and make the best of it. My test application is now reaching a point where it becomes functionnally superior to my web 1.0 productive version. Thanks in large part to GraffitiSuite. - The point being, yes it is possible to do something that matches and in some respects surpasses the web 1.0 equivalent. Not all the way yet. But getting there slowly. In a little over a year, I went from extremely disappointed with web 2.0 to moderately optimistic, in part because I tamed the beast, in part because the beast became better.
Bottom line: It is not yet on par or superior to web 1.0 in all respects yet, but it is getting there a bit more with each release. Web 2.0 is definitely worth spending time learning it and adapting to it. Some already use it in production. It is not quite ready for productive use in my use cases, but getting closer. I intend to keep testing it and learning it (I still have a lot of web 1.0 paradigms that I need to get rid of, Web 2.0 being very different in every respect). The idea is to be ready to switch when the day comes that Web 1.0 is made obsolete by the ever changing web.
3 Likes