Michelle,

It's certainly possible to do what you describe. The main advantage of this set up is that maintanence is easier (you only have to update the executable on the server, not on each workstation). I doubt, however, that it will solve any of the problems you're having. The only thing that should work differently is that you need to make sure you've either set the default or set the path to the data when the executable is on the workstation.

I doubt the skip message is getting "lost" between the workstation and the server. If your network were that bad, you'd be losing all kinds of things. Even if that is happening, putting the exe on the server won't help. The workstation will load the exe from the server and all the data will still have to be sent back and forth between the server and the workstation.

Of course, it won't hurt to try it. The biggest disadvantage is that you'll have increased network traffic when a workstation loads the exe and the application may run a little slower.


>We set up our application so that the tables are on the server and the executables are on each local computer.
>
>There are some glitches that occur when it is set up this way that don't happen when everything is set up on one computer. (Skip not skipping, mentioned in a previous post, for example) Unfortunately, some clients need to have more than one computer access the same tables, so I can't install the exe and tables on a single workstation.
>
>What I was wondering is if it would be better to put both the tables _and_ the executables on the server. The workstations would then run the executable that is on the server.
>
>Is this possible? Will a VFP app have trouble if you're running the same executable on multiple workstations at the same time?
>
>And do you think it will help? My theory is that the message to the table to skip to the next record is getting lost on the way to the server. If the executable and tables are on the same computer, this doesn't happen. So If I have the workstations run the executables that are on the server with the data, theoretically the message shouldn't get lost.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Thanks,