Re: Forms 9i middle tier on client?

From: Ryan Gaffuri <rgaffuri_at_cox.net>
Date: 6 Mar 2003 09:54:53 -0800
Message-ID: <1efdad5b.0303060548.273d580e_at_posting.google.com>


mark.beck_at_gmx.de (Mark Beck) wrote in message news:<d055eff1.0303050635.3882c0fd_at_posting.google.com>...
> Hi,
> due to the approaching desupport of Forms6i, which was client/server
> based,
> I'm searching for a solution with Forms9i. The design of my
> application is
> and should be c/s in the future, therefore without a dedicated
> application server/middle tier.
> The idea is to place the middle tier on the client(OC4J+Forms9i
> Servlet&Listener). As long as it meets the hardware specs(P3 >500 MHz;
> RAM 256Megs), this should be ok.
> The problem is, that I have found an oc4j standalone client on
> otn(<25Megs), which installs properly, but I don't know how to fit in
> the Forms90-Servlet. On the other side you have to install the
> complete OracleiDS Developer Suite(iDS) to get the Forms Developer and
> the Forms Servlet Engine on the client(no manual installation
> possible). That's around 1.8GB that I don't want to have on
> every client.. No option either is to install the complete iAS..
>
> Is there any way to get a "thin" oc4j+forms9i engine on a client?
> Has anyone tried that?
>
> Kind Regards
> Mark

You lost me on your reasoning. Oracle took out all client server support in 9i. If you want to use a client/server forms you can still license 6i? Please explain WHY you are doing this?

As far as thin. NO forms is a heavy weight tool. This is a huge drawback to web base forms deployment. The network traffic is much higher than with java or even with .net.

BTW, why are you even doing a client/server application? All the above being said its cheaper and easier to do a web deployment with forms than a client/server. Ive done both. Now setting up the web server can be a real pain to learn how to do it and making sure all your users have a qualified browser is a little more work, but when that is done, no other deployments???? Received on Thu Mar 06 2003 - 18:54:53 CET

Original text of this message