Hi!

Your choise is correct. To allow to connect 100 users to SQL server you require appropriate license. With remote object(s) you will have much less connections to SQL server, but more connections to remote object(s).

Regarding to you question about what is better: more connections to SQL server (more objects) or less connections (less objects, narrower approach). It is depended on the application. If users doing a lot of transactions simultaneously, narrow approach may cause a lot of delays for data saving. The same thing if you have many queries. In such case object(s) even might not be beneficial at all, because the number of connections you free by using objects will be not large enough to make benefit over the objects developing expenses. In case when you have many users, but little of them work simultaneously or data transfering will not cause overload, you may easy use 4-5 objects under MTS with 4-5 connections to SQL server.

(Sorry for my bad English, HTH)

>Are there any rules of thumb to guide me in deciding how to setup my connections to an SQL server in terms of quantity of connections?
>
>If I have say 100 users using a VFP app, accessing SQL server, and the option to use MTS, I might configure it several ways in regards to connections.
>
>1) Each user has a connection which is left open during the life of the application.
>2) Each user opens and closes connections as needed.
>3) Create a set of MTS objects that maintain their own constant connections to the SQL server, and users make requests of those objects. This would result in all the users requests being funneled through the set of connections used by MTS objects.
>
>The 3rd way seems to make the most sense to me. But then, if I have the option of structuring my MTS objects such that it could be a narrower or wider funnel, how should I choose?
>
>TIA,
>Anthony