>>You're right - I meant that n-tiered stuff that was so vogue a few months ago!<

LOL ... I think it's been more than "a few months". ;)

>>And that's why I don't do two shows a night.<

Whew! That's a relief!!! <g>

~~Bonnie


>>>>I like "layered architectures" - I have read articles suggesting that "layered" solutions are just as valid, or better [even], an approach as "client-server"<
>>
>>As much as I enjoy your "off the wall" comments, Terry, sometimes I think you should stick to your version of "humor". <g>
>You're right - I meant that n-tiered stuff that was so vogue a few months ago!
>http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=31725&redir=1
>substitute "n-tiered" or "tiered" for "client server"!
>
>And that's why I don't do two shows a night.
>
>>
>>Client-server *is* "layered architecture" ... why are you implying differently? (or am I mis-reading you?)
>>
>>~~Bonnie
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I'm sorry, Terry, but your statements about sexy applications having to ignore data-binding, SQL technology, etc. (I already know that you neglect layered architectures) is what will keep you writing poor applications while the rest of us try to learn how to build flexible and scalable ones.
>>>
>>>"scalable" - anything solution is scalable - layered applications are just as scalible as C/S! Scalibility is a marketing gimmick to get some purchasing manager to allocate funds for something - that in 90% of the cases - is not needed.
>>>
>>>I didn't say anything about SQL - I've done SQL and VFP - and it was "crisp" enough to do the trick
>>>
>>>I like "layered architectures" - I have read articles suggesting that "layered" solutions are just as valid, or better [even], an approach as "client-server"
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I wish you the best of lucks. Perhaps all the past twenty years of computing science has been wrong, and the secret was in xBase. I just won't bet.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,