Hi All,

I am new to this forum and framework and would like to ask a few questions regarding your experiences using the Infragistics controls within SF. Specifically, we are designing a web based scheduling application that will have up to 200 concurrent users and are considering using SF and the IG web scheduler. Our main concern is software performance while still providing a feature rich user interface. We have used the Mere Mortals framework and the IG controls for other applications and any comments/comparisons regarding the pros/cons of data retrieval and update would be appreciated.

Regards,

Trevor

Trevor,



Sorry for the delayed response here. I missed this post and so I am truly sorry.



Let me get to your question here. Anytime that you develop an online solution there are always potential performance issues. It seems that you have the need to create an online solution versus distributing an executable. In short, if you have the option of distributing an executable and running smart-client you will always have better performance. This allows you to have a centralized database, but the client is running through a smart-client app versus a web browser.



If this is not an option, then the next solution would be online where you had mentioned you were already planning on writing your app. The performance issues that you run into here are going to be more browser based than business level and data level based. If you use StrataFrame, the middle and back end are very easy to implement here. The hardest part of this solution is making the Infragistics controls responsive and as you add logic, making them remain stable. They are good controls, but like any environment, the smart-client controls such as the WinForms controls are more stable just due to the platform.



In our medical application, we have an entire module dedicated to scheduling. It is medical scheduling and very complex. We elected to write our own control that works in conjunction with StrataFrame as the 3rd party tools were so bloated trying to meet every demand that they were too slow and clunky. You may run into a similar situation here. Depending on the complexity of your app, you may be better off writing a custom web control that provides only the specs you need versus trying to meet every potential client that uses this control.



I hope that this makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

Hi Trent,

I am evaluating StrataFrame right now and found this post which interests me since I have a scheduling intensive VFP application for health care rehabilitation providers and I am considering a move to .NET.   My first evaluation is using StrataFrame and my second will be interface controls like Infragistics. 

For most scheduling views, my current VFP application uses a very complex set of grid objects to display time/resource rows and columns and it exceptionally fast and efficient.  While it was extremely complex getting everything to work, it looks great, is lightening fast, and bullet proof running over a WAN with over 200 users.   My decision to custom build was simply because the 3rd party market controls like DBI were either too specific (wareshouse/point of sale) or contained bloat as you referenced in your original post.

I am curious to know if the developers at StrataFrame evaluated any scheduling controls and if the main decision factor was the bloat of those controls or the lack of customization?   Additionally, what was your approach to building a custom control----was it using building blocks from existing .NET/Strataframe objects or did you build it from scratch?

Thanks,

Bob