RE: CFINT: I understand it now...

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Svalgaard
>
> From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com>
> > You're right, Leif.  A server program is more efficient than the
> > corresponding monolithic program, but the sum of the client
> program and the
> > server program is roughly equivalent.  However, a server can provide
> > performance boosts such as leaving data paths open and caching
> small tables
> > that simply aren't as efficiently implemented in a monolithic
> program that
> > is invoked in different interactive sessions.  Correct?
>
> ===> yes, but not to the point of making it 'far MORE' efficient. In fact,
> a decebt operating makes more of a difference by caching accesses, etc.
> So, yes, but not 'far MORE'.

(...)

> ===> no argument, really. I was just not convinced by your very
> strong statement that C/S is 'far MORE' efficient. C/S is a 'far
> BETTER' approach for many other reasons.

I think I've restated my position adequately... C/S and monolithic
applications are "roughly equivalent", but servers have opportunities for
performance enhancements not available to monolithic techniques.  And, as
you pointed out, there are other benefits, not the least of which is
prograsmmer productivity.  Remove the word "far" from my original statement,
and we can quit quibbling.

Joe Pluta
www.plutabrothers.com