PMFJI, but....

>
>>>>>Using remote views requires less knowledge of the back-end syntax.
>>>The fallacy of course is that if you are developing a C/S app, one needs to be knowledgeable about the back-end. As far as the syntax is concerned, it is SQL that is being passed to the the backend. That syntax is being generated on the client. If one is tasked with building a C/S s/he needs to know and understand all aspects of the system: both the client and the server.<<
>
>I can't remember that point. I remember the point that use of RVs (and LVs) can make your app backend independent. This *does* matter, especially for broad appeal apps where buyers may have a corporate database standard. Faced with "lose the business" vs "use Sybase" on a big deal, the ability to demonstrate quickly using Sybase is a blessing.
>


This, for me, is a very important factor in deciding for SPT versus RVs. RVs do offer greater appeal if back-end portability is your goal (though I believe that ADO/SPT is still a viable solution in such a scenario). BUT, increasingly, I am not so crazy about app designs that strive for back-end portability in the first place! I know that this is veering off-topic a bit, but I think it is important since it involves one of the pros/cons of the RV/SPT decision:

I can understand the business reasons for attempting back-end portability - client B calls tomorrow and loves what you did for Client A but he/she insists on Sybase over Oracle, etc. But unless you realistically expect such a development, striving for back-end portability can really limit you. Simply put, it is a shame to rely on the lowest common denominator of back-end features. In SQL Server, for example, stored procedures and UDFs are so powerful and important that they can greatly improve your app's speed and scope.

(BTW, and for the record, I have never liked RVs. I use them for prototyping and data mining, not much else. Now that I am feeling more and more comfortable with XML messaging and back-end features, I no longer really think in RV terms. So I admit some bias.)