Kevin,

>who posted the belief that "in many quarters there seems to be an attitude that if it isn't in a browser, it isn't 'state of the art'"<

Oh yeah, I meant to respond to that too ... I can't imagine why people would think that a browser-based app is 'state of the art' ... I mean, browsers have been around for so many years that it's hardly state of the art anymore, IMHO.

~~Bonnie



>At the risk of being a 'ditto-head', we've been doing the same general thing for a few years now that Bonnie described - a Winform piece, a local support library, and a local proxy that either connects to a web service (might be an internal IP address, or an external one), or triggers a remoting process.
>
>I can only speak for the companies/developers I've had contact with. When an application is replacing some type of thick-client GUI, a distributed model of Winforms and some combination of web services/remoting to the application tier and database has become fairly popular and effective as a way of developing n-tier and still giving end-users the 'rich UI'.
>
>To me, it's still 'web-based' - but regardless, it can work well. ;)
>
>(Obviously, this assumes an install base where the .NET framework can be installed and local workstation hardware rqmts are met).
>
>A question for the person (might have been John R., I can't recall) who posted the belief that "in many quarters there seems to be an attitude that if it isn't in a browser, it isn't 'state of the art'"...our of curiosity, what have you read/observed that leads you to conclude that? (not trying to pick an argument, just curious about the statement and which quarters are being referred to).
>
>Kevin