I think the word "THIN" is a relative term. :)


>>I would have to use the interfaces of both projects, to make a determination. There used be developers that would put a grid in a form, with the the caveat, "It captures all the data the fat system does?" - but the fat system actually had a more appealing interface and required less re-edits and manitenance:-)
>
>Yes; I agree with your position re: boring, unimaginative thin / browser based UI's.
>
>Some "gurus" maintain that field level edits cramp "data entry", and it is preferable to blast to user with numerous error message at save time, or simply to "save" garbage for a later "correction" cycle. (Which, BTW, is the same style we used in the "mainframe era" when we wrote CICS or IMS/DC online transaction systems for "dumb" terminals).
>
>When I poll my users, they all prefer my "restricted", "fat", field level edit checking style ...
>
>When folks espouse thin client architecture as being the latest and greatest, they're actually turning the clock back some 30+ years ...
>
>(The biggest web transaction servers are actually CICS servers that are using PC's to emulate 3270 dumb terminals over the internet. That's why COBOL will never die, and .NET and Java are also rans)