>Agreed. However, it's not bad to have options (especially free ones).

Sure. But the free aspect is a non-issue imo for serious website development. I have never minded paying for good tools, books, software, etc that do the job.

>Also, it's good to know something about the architecture of web apps and performance issues. One problem I see is for web sites that work fine under small loads, but, when they encounter tremendous growth, they have severe problems.

According to the Foxweb site it has been tested with a sustained load of 180,000 hits (Foxweb requests) per hour on high end server. If I had a website that had that kind of traffic I would be questioning more that my choice of VFP-web connectivity :)


>This would probably be the case for very large and busy Foxweb sites that run on CGI and for other vfp web sites that are using File-based technology for web communication between Web Server and Foxpro(which is deceptively simple). Probably the switch from Foxweb CGI to Foxweb ISAPI is not as bad as switching from File-based communication to COM based...

The switch between using FoxWeb in cgi or isapi mode is the difference between typing "foxweb.exe" and "foxweb.dll" in the url - literally thats it. One will not notice much difference between these two except under heavy load conditions. The isapi works great.


But you are right. All choices should be looked at - given the time to do so :/


>
>>Hi Claude. Thanks for the additional info. I dont think, imo, that developers are scared off because of misguided perceptions. I expect that most developers are too busy. If a solution works well then there is no pressing reason to re-develop with another tool. If it works, it works.
>>
>>Later
>>
>>