>I'm delighted to know that you are doing this. Also pleased to know that MM will work well with WebConnect. The Feltman's have been more visible in their collaboration with Rick Strahl so I wasn't sure about this.
>
I know Kevin has said that there will be more info. about using WC w/MM's in the next version. Actually, it's pretty easy reusing your MM's bizobj's right now just by compiling them into a COM object and calling them from WC. The only real disadvantage to doing that is speed. Your calls to the bizobj have to cross COM boundaries which will add overhead to everything. On a high-volume web site this might be an issue. If you could keep all the calls in VFP, it should be faster. I actually started playing around with this (completely merging a WC project with a MM's one) a while ago but didn't get very far - I had other projects to finish. I know I ran into a few issues right off the bat with a conflict with NewID() in WC and in MM. But I can't imagine this would be too hard to get working.
>Do you see the point I was making about the server and the client each needing a quite different framework or class set?
>
Sure do.
>Why don't you start a thread under 3rd Party--MM and tell us a little more about this app...
Err...what kinds of things do you want to know?
>
>I've heard the phrase "data islands" and it seems to capture an idea that I've had about sending a selection of related data records to the client. Not just the immediate record being updated but related records that the user might want to browse to. The user could navigate around within this set without further network traffic until they performed an update or reached the boundaries of the "data island". Does this make sense to you?
>
Yeah, that's normally how you'd handle info in a web browser. I think Erik Moore has a XML/XSL class in the files section based on some of the WC libraries that let a user sort a table by clicking on the header. It all happens on the web browser and doesn't require a round trip to the server. I know I've seen someone else had a similiar demo that they posted recently too.
This is really the best way to handle that kind of thing. Anything that minimizes network traffic is good, especially since the client might be connected by a slow 28.8k connection. You don't want to hit the server everytime they want to do something if it's not necessary.
