Eric Schubert ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: In article <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] (Mike Belshe)
: writes:
: >If the designers of telnet
: >had taken the VT approach with a more complex client, they could have
: >saved a lot of lan overhead.
 
: Ok, now we are back to protocol methods on a state-full connection.  Nothing
: to do with WWW.  Take a look at RFC1116, line mode telnet.
 
The *only* analogy I was attempting to draw was only that both problems
focus on the difference between "smart" and "dumb" clients.  I apologize
for all of the other drivel that gets dragged in with the VT-telnet example.
 
: >The advantage of WWW is that it is a simple client.  Everyone already
: >has one.
 
:  How much is this glossed over fact worth to a you as an information
: provider?!  Hell, this fact alone is enough to make you want to implement
some
: kind of Web service.  Do you know that in 1994 Web server sites on the
: Internet increased at rates of like 50 to 100 new servers A DAY.  The
software
: designed to count Web server sites started but NEVER finished!  The software
: couldn't count them fast enough!
 
: >The disadvantage is that it is a stateless (almost) client
: >and a stateless server.  The client doesn't know what it is doing other
: >than displaying data.
 
: Right you are, but being stateless is only a handicap when doing massive
: data entry into your system.  Creating an ODBC session for casual update and
: inquiry for thousands of users don't scale (the typical Internet problem).
: Proposals are being circulated to enhance HTTP to store session information
: on the client.  In absence of this enhancement, you can create and store
: your own session information using hidden form fields.  I can repost my HTTP
: tutorial again for those who missed it.
 
 
Ok- the above point was my point.  A lot of people are connecting databases
to the WWW.  I think thats great, and its going to work very well for most
people.  I wanted to clarify that for some applications, WWW is not the
right answer.  WWW is probably not the best solution if you've got huge,
high volume databases.  From your text above, you are agreeing with that,
so I think we are saying the same thing here.
 
FYI- It may seem trivial that I make this point.  To many of us it is
obvious.  However, I've spoken to plenty of people who have seen the WWW
interface to the 3000 have said things like, "Finally a GUI for the
HP3000!  I can't wait to tell my boss about this!"  To some degree WWW can
be used as a GUI to an HP3000.  However, I want to make it clear that there
are plenty of situations out there where WWW is not the proper interface.
 
 
Enjoy,
 
Mike
 
 
---
Mike Belshe
[log in to unmask]