Times may have changed. One of the reasons I used the past tense is that I heard that some of these problems are fixed in 4.0. I just stated why , in the past, I would never have recommended WO for anyone who had a requirement of being able to process multiple sessions simultaneously (>30) or where the ratio of processes to sessions was too high. In the situation I mentioned before, quad processor pentium w/ 1 G of main memory, all this for 20 instances that could only handle 5 active sessions (I'm told that they later incresed the number of sessions each instance could handle). These were consultants from Apple's consulting division. This tells me that this 'was' the upper end WO could handle and that the hardware cost for this 'upper end' was excessive. Seeing this situation, it should be easy to see why I wouldn't be reccomending WO for any of MY clients who have requirements to handle higher usage. For smaller to medium usage requirements, I would be hard pressed not to include WO as one of the client's options, just based on flexability, ease of use, and the quality of the toolset. Even then, I would explore at least two other options. If you need to ask why, I'll give you the simple answer, no technology is best suited for every application, it is important that one knows the strengths and weeknesses of any technology considered and then choose the best one. I have stated where I think WOs weeknesses were. I also realize that I didn't mention many (any) of its strengths, but most people on this list already have a good idea of many of them. And I am waiting to get a copy of WO4 so that I can see how it has improved and how it affects which applications I may reccommend it for. Until then, realize that my opinions are based on my experience learning the technology, as well as seeing some of the problems implementing particular WO applications, and it was all 3.51. Dave Medvitz Sr. Programmer DAOU-Sentient
