Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> There is one additional point, and that is, the generic
> client has to handle multiple languages which of course
> web browsers do. I do wonder what the overhead of that
> is, but given the managed code idea, it can't be horrific.
> The reason I bring it up is that one advantage of say,
> VFP, is the Fox language itself. It is easy to work
> in a relational system given the commands available.
In the standard modern architecture, you would use something like VFP to
talk to the relational database on the server side and generate an XML
view of the data. (XML+HTTP or XML+SOAP, depending on your tastes) Then
the client neither knows nor cares that the data is stored relationally.
And you can hook up dozens of different kinds of clients. A simple HTML
form one for the lynx users, a DHTML one for the IE 6 users, a VB one
for those willing to install a server app, a Java one for the Linux
clients, etc. It isn't browser OR VFP. It's using each at what it excels at.
So instead of claiming that browsers are good relational clients I'll
turn the question around and ask you why you choose not to implement in
this neo-canonical style. This model is compelling enough to drive
relational clients from PowerBuilder to Visual FoxPro out of the vast
majority of today's development shops.