Of course, I'm biased. But, I believe the statements I'm making are accurate...
>You wouldn't be slightly biased, would you? <bg>
>
>>1.)ActiveVFP is the only truly multi-threaded of this group because it uses VFP mtdlls (as do vfp web services). This means a lot in terms of speed, scalability, and efficiency. For example, with ActiveVFP, all vfp web threads will share the smaller vfp runtime. In contrast, the other tools simulate multi-threading by starting 2-3 vfp processes(typically). A VFP process (or channel as it's called in Foxweb) will load a copy of the larger VFP runtime with each instance. Processes have much more overhead than a thread. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you have more than 3 simultaneous requests with 3 server processes, somebody will end up waiting. Yes, this technique is workable but, for vfp, it can be much better using threading.
>>2.)ActiveVFp is the only completely free and Open Source choice among this group for vfp web apps.
>>3.)ActiveVFP is the only one to integrate with ASP.NET.
>>Other things:
>>AFP and Foxweb concentrate on placing vfp code within the HTML like Classic ASP does. This is an older way of creating web apps that can end up being hard to manage (spaghetti code). ActiveVFP and wwc offer this way and the option to keep the application code in the dll or exe and process HTML templates. This is the more modern way and the way ASP.NET works (code-behind).
>>Many developers have described wwc as hard to learn. There was even a book that described it as being a "bitch to learn". I've used wwc quite a lot and I would have to agree. That's one of the reasons why I created ActiveVFP...
>>
>>>what is difference b/w
>>>1. AFP ( Active Foxpro Pages )
>>>2. AVfp ( Active Visual Foxpro Pages )
>>>3. FoxWeb
>>>4. WWC ( West Wind Word Connection )
>>>
>>>and which one technique is good and why ?
>>>
>>>Best wishes
>>>Faisal