Fat client - Server: Which technology?

[Pieter Coucke]

Hi,

Which technology's are used to make Windows Forms (Fat) Client - Server
application with VB.NET (2.0)?
- XML Webservices, Remoting, DCOM, ... are there others?
- Which are used the most and why?
- Pro's and cons?

Any help or usefull links would be really appreciated!

thanks a lot in advance,

Pieter

[David Browne]

Re: Fat client - Server: Which technology?


"Pieter Coucke" <pietercoucke@h otmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23CFDr$pc GHA.3908@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Which technology's are used to make Windows Forms (Fat) Client - Server
> application with VB.NET (2.0)?
> - XML Webservices, Remoting, DCOM, ... are there others?
> - Which are used the most and why?
> - Pro's and cons?
>
> Any help or usefull links would be really appreciated!
>
> thanks a lot in advance,
>[/color]


Short answer: XML Web Services.

Long Answer

Check out

patterns & practices: Smart Client
http://msdn.microsoft.com/practices/...e/smartclient/

Smart Client Architecture and Design Guide
http://msdn.microsoft.com/practices/.../html/scag.asp

Smart Client Baseline Architecture Toolkit Home

http://www.gotdotnet.com/codegallery/codegallery.aspx?id=941d2228-3bb5-42fd-8004-c08595821170

David

[Pieter Coucke]

Re: Fat client - Server: Which technology?

"David Browne" <davidbaxterbro wne no potted meat@hotmail.co m> wrote in
message news:O1u6DRrcGH A.5048@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Short answer: XML Web Services.[/color]

It did wants performance-test with XML Webservices (.NET 1.1) and abandonned
the use of it because of hte really poor performance, especially when having
to select a lot of records.

Did this get spectaculary better in the 2.0 Framework, or is this something
you jsutn eed to live with when using Webservices?

[David Browne]

Re: Fat client - Server: Which technology?


"Pieter Coucke" <pietercoucke@h otmail.com> wrote in message
news:eKQq1WrcGH A.4892@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "David Browne" <davidbaxterbro wne no potted meat@hotmail.co m> wrote in
> message news:O1u6DRrcGH A.5048@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Short answer: XML Web Services.[/color]
>
> It did wants performance-test with XML Webservices (.NET 1.1) and
> abandonned the use of it because of hte really poor performance,
> especially when having to select a lot of records.
>
> Did this get spectaculary better in the 2.0 Framework, or is this
> something you jsutn eed to live with when using Webservices?
>[/color]

Live with.

XML is XML. Computers are faster now, but all the methods mentioned have
performance concerns. You really have to design around it by limiting the
amount of data moved to and from the client.

For some applications if performance is a huge concern, you can always just
talk to your your database server.

So either, go directly to the database, or use XML Web Services. Forget all
the intermediate options.


David

[yekerui]

Re: Fat client - Server: Which technology?

Hi, Pieter:
try SocketPro at www.udaparts.com. Look at the article at
http://www.udaparts.com/document/articles/dialupdb.htm SocketPro is
especially great for building fat client -server applications. Nothing else
can matche it!

Regards,


"Pieter Coucke" <pietercoucke@h otmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23CFDr$pc GHA.3908@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Which technology's are used to make Windows Forms (Fat) Client - Server
> application with VB.NET (2.0)?
> - XML Webservices, Remoting, DCOM, ... are there others?
> - Which are used the most and why?
> - Pro's and cons?
>
> Any help or usefull links would be really appreciated!
>
> thanks a lot in advance,
>
> Pieter
>[/color]

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

Re: Fat client - Server: Which technology?

XML Web Services and Remoting are essentially the same thing, as are WCF
services (Vista). DCOM is largely out of the picture right now.

The benefit of Remoting is the flexibility of protocol and the loss of being
coupled with HTTP. But, this benefit, which was largely in performance, is
pretty much gone now. The biggest benefit of Remoting, at this time, is
stateful objects (marshall by reference).

Web services have the benefit of being able to key them to a name service
(UDDI) and have the client automatically check with the name service when it
loses connectivity, giving you a lot of flexibility. The same can be done
with Remoting, but you will have to build it. Moving from ASMX web services
to WCF services is also an easy step, so you are heading in the correct
direction for Vista.

As for usage, I see a lot of Remoting. This is largely due to preoccupation
with performance, even though acceptable level of service is not normally
calculated prior to reducing cycles, so it is an artificial measure. In my
experience, web services in 1.x were fine for apps and 2.0 are even faster,
so the perf argument is bogus in most cases. In addition, I have found a
great number of shops tying Remoting to SSL, which means the only perf
benefit is the fact you do not have to go through a SOAP wrapper. So, you
get very little perf benefit at the cost of a lot of lost maintainability .
Not very wise.

I am sure some will disagree with me. :-)

--
Gregory A. Beamer

*************** *************** *************** ****
Think Outside the Box!
*************** *************** *************** ****
"Pieter Coucke" <pietercoucke@h otmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23CFDr$pc GHA.3908@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> Which technology's are used to make Windows Forms (Fat) Client - Server
> application with VB.NET (2.0)?
> - XML Webservices, Remoting, DCOM, ... are there others?
> - Which are used the most and why?
> - Pro's and cons?
>
> Any help or usefull links would be really appreciated!
>
> thanks a lot in advance,
>
> Pieter
>[/color]

[N Bethmann]

RE: Fat client - Server: Which technology?

XML Web Services work fine for us. Just make sure to enable HTTP compression
on client and server or it will be slow. We typically get 6 to 1 compression
ratios which really helps when sending big blobs of XML.

Somebody once installed a proxy server that didn't support compression and
the fat client users started complaining that everything was slow.