Sorry, for the late response on this, but, here it is...
When you say "server" to what are you referring? Web server? Application Server? Database server?
I agree that scaled servers represent a huge performance advantage and WEB/APP servers are the cheapest and simplest tier to scale. I have built systems with over 25,000 users (with peaks of 4-5,000 concurrent users) and only had ONE database server (with mirroring, etc.). That system DID have 13 web/app servers, though. Relatively inexpensive boxes, I might add.
In most N-Tier systems I've used, the web servers are the only database users and the ones requiring authentication. The clients are not database users, but users of web services. This also seems that way most enterprise information systems are going these days. I feel like I've found a profitable way to fit the building of Rev thin clients into that mix. I just don't see that many new client-server projects being started in IT departments around here.
Another question: why would a server "push" to the client? Don't servers usually reply to a request from a client? Maybe I'm missing something here.
Best,
Jerry
On Jan 12, 2004, at 6:19 PM, Doug Lerner wrote:
If the server has the ability to communicate with a Rev thin client with
server push to the sockets, wouldn't direct access would be more dynamic?
For one thing, you avoid repetitive authentications.
And if the server has scalable feature - like Web Crossing - you are taking
advantage of huge server-side architecture benefits.
doug
On 1/13/04 9:09 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
