John:

>>>>>>>>>
There is a 1% chance that the app has to be 100% web-enabled. This I think you would agree is a remote scenario. Futher, presume that it would cost an additional $50,000 to architect the app so that it could go to the web.

Budgets are not an infinite resource. In this case, I have to make a decision to choose between required features or the correct architecture based on a remote need.

I suppose from a technical/theorhetical perspective, you could argue the app is incorrectly architected. From a financial/practical perspective, the app is correctly architected.

Erik, it depends on your perspective as to what is correctly vs. incorrectly architected. Remember, development has to be funded.

My argument is that COM does just fine. COM and XML works. I seem to recall ads from 2 years ago, hearlding WinDNA as THE way to architect your apps for the the Web. Now that we have spent the better part of 2 to 3 years, have we now awoke from a peaceful slumber to find out we were wrong?

My point here is not to debate whether .Net will be a good thing or not. Rather, my point is to say that COM is not bad...
>>>>>>>>>

I agree 100% with you on this topic. Applications are just a commodity and like all other commodities, are no longer useful (or the best solution) after a while...

Daniel