Maybe we should call your definition Ultra thin Denis?
Really I want to bail from this thread, but its Friday so...
About DA Controls, yes I agree there are occasions where they are
inappropriate, but remember your original statement was "Who needs em?"
In Midas stuff we are using, the client qualifies as thin. Deployment is
even simple - far simpler than BDE or ADO and I only mention them in the
context of relative deployment comparisons.. In the Midas Client it is
perfectly valid to use a DBGrid because we can easily control the fetches.
In fact, with our Static
Table Caching Scheme, it is even perfectly valid to use the
DBLookUpComboDialog control, which no one in there right mind would consider
using with a classic 2 tier CS model. Remember the thread on populating non
DA Combo's with Data?
I assume that nobody would consider using in grid editing, and that this is
very well known by now.
I haven't seen order ware - maybe it has something that will fire me up -
but IMO, and with all due respect to order ware (which I hear through the
grapevine is pretty cool stuff) HTML clients lack the sophisticated data
interface techniques that we the users really want. Frankly, I just plain
dislike HTML
interfaces. Most are rich in graphics and gimicks, and thin on UI technique.
I suppose I view them cynically as marketing solutions for a Scientific
problem!
Neven, as far as ADO goes, I see it as a "relativly" fat connectivity layer
when compared to using the DBMS Client API directly as per IBX for example.
In this way only I liken it to BDE.
Finally Denis, everything is relative, and to me the MIDAS solution is
relativly
thin. It offers a solution that performs as well as the older text based
data solutions like JDE for example. All the hard work and "Fat" is done at
the server side - analogous to
your web solution - except that we have the advantage of being able to
deploy GUI Clients as well as HTML Clients. We can break our project up into
Multiple Servers and Multiple Clients, and the servers can be deployed
anywhere, with Parallel servers, Load balancing, Fail Safe Change over, etc
etc.
The client is simply a slick GUI with little or no underlying Logic. There
are also numerous architectural, and Project management advantages in using
the Midas n tiered approach.
Using MIDAS, Clients can be GUI or HTML. HTML clients are very easy to do.
Along with Interbase, its a subject that you can't really appreciate how
good
it is until you have been immersed in it for a while. You can compare SQL7 V
Interbase, and say SQL7 is just fine, but once you have given IB a serious
work out, you will for ever not be happy with SQL 7. Same argument for
Midas.
Cheers,
Tony.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Chuah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of list delphi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, 28 January 2000 11:57 AM
Subject: RE: [DUG]: Thin Client
Neven,
> If your definition of thin is
>
> 1. No client side installation whatsoever (not even an EXE).
> 2. Can run over slow, unreliable networks.
> 3. Can run on relatively poorly spec clients
>
> Yourv'e been reading too many Citrix Sales Brochures
I've never read any of their brochures - I've deployed solutions using
Citrix, there *IS* a difference :).
> Re your points
>
> 1. Thats not thin thats Anorexic (Even the Citrix Client has an EXE)
OK. I deploy anorexic web solutions :)
> 2. Has nothing to do with the arguement!
Well, actually, it has - won't classify a "thin client" as one requiring a
dedicated 10Mb bandwidth to run.
> 3. Is as a result of being Thin not a definition of it!
A client that requires a superfast, hot off the production line CPU, with
oodles of RAM and hard disk space isn't thin either.
Using *MY* definition, if you don't have (1) to (3), you're not thin!
> Thin vs Fat client relates to the relative positioning of the
> functionality
> of the whole system
As well, as installation - what is the point of deploying a "thin client"
solution if it takes one hour to install each client? It costs you more to
install than it is to buy the software!
> Citrix is indeed a very thin client - Client/Server Apps tend
> to be fat - 3
> tier CS Thin (You could make a 3 tier system fat by
> positioning the middle
> tier at the client but I don't see the point)
> ADO is simply an access method and as such doesn't even
> really qualify as a
> client
However, if installing ADO is part of your client install, then you DON'T
have a thin client solution.
Regards,
Dennis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Delphi Users group - Delphi List - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: http://www.delphi.org.nz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Delphi Users group - Delphi List - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: http://www.delphi.org.nz
