a reader's comment regarding
database architecture
"Although you are certainly correct about desktop machines being
powerful, and they certainly have plenty of processing power to run just
about any application, for transaction processing based applications that
is
not the issue. The issue is transaction processing based business
applications are data intensive, not (inherently) display intensive. A
fundamental reality of system design is that the display must be on the
desktop so the user can see it, and common data must be centrally located
so that everyone can get at it. The variable is: where do you put the
application? Clearly, for word processing, CAD, etc., you want the
application near the display. But for transaction processing, you want
the
application near the data...
In the client-server paradigm, a client is the requestor of services and
a server is the provider thereof. Surely the application is the client,
not the
keyboard and display. The display is just another server, just like a print
server. Similarly, the keyboard and mouse are services that provide input
for the client application. X-windows got it right - the display (and
keyboard and mouse) are handled by an X-server. As a system designer, I
want to be able to put the application where it makes sense - neither
forced to put it in the same box as the display OR in the same box as the
database
(as with traditional mainframe/mini architectures). Distributed DBMS systems
now allow the database to be separated from the application and run on
as many
servers as needed (with perhaps some practical limitations). The Citrix
ICA scheme,
allows the display, keyboard and mouse (the intrinsically desktop items)
to be
separated from the application. THAT allows for good system design.
Java is even better. It lets the application that make sense to run on
the
desktop do so, and the rest run on the server (really, the client!). "
Jim Herber
Director, System Products
Physician Computer Network