I tried it several years ago and had all kinds of problems.  I remember I 
had to write apps that will restart the server by trapping errors in the 
log.  I like the idea of xb2net.
No Apache required.

Is anybody really successful with the use of XBase++ WAA and Apache?  Xb2net 
is an expensive third party product.

Thank you.

Richard A. Pulliam
138 Colina Circle
Panama City Beach, Florida 32413
Voice and Fax: 877-467-7588   Cell: 850-238-1203
http://www.ClipperSolutions.com

Hi,

I'm using both (WAA and xb2net) with diferent customers, I preffer xb2net as more simple and powerfull but WAA also works

Regards,
Pablo Botella

On 8/10/2011 2:04 PM, Richard A. Pulliam wrote:
> I tried it several years ago and had all kinds of problems. I remember I
> had to write apps that will restart the server by trapping errors in the
> log. I like the idea of xb2net.
> No Apache required.
>
> Is anybody really successful with the use of XBase++ WAA and Apache?
> Xb2net is an expensive third party product.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Richard A. Pulliam
> 138 Colina Circle
> Panama City Beach, Florida 32413
> Voice and Fax: 877-467-7588 Cell: 850-238-1203
> http://www.ClipperSolutions.com
>
>
Hi Richard:
My experience has been successful with WAA and Apache for the past 11 years.
There were a couple of minor problems along the way buy they were all 
resolved.

The combination of WAA and Apache are so stable that they were recently 
utilized to develop our own company software used solely in-house (which 
was a VB Microsoft Access application).

WAA and Apache allows me to take software development to a new level - 
from desktop to web; just like Clipper took me from interpretive app to 
compiled app in the mid-eighties.

Richard A. Pulliam wrote:

> I tried it several years ago and had all kinds of problems.  I remember I 
> had to write apps that will restart the server by trapping errors in the 
> log.  I like the idea of xb2net.
> No Apache required.
> 
> Is anybody really successful with the use of XBase++ WAA and Apache?  Xb2net 
> is an expensive third party product.

I'm using WAA for several years now and it works with only a few minor
problems.

The only disadvantage I could name might be that WAA is not a real service
app - so I had to run the server with auto-logon and put WAA startup batch
into the autorun folder.

Thomas

definitely works.

we use it extensively for all kinds of real time production apps

note that afaik, alaska does not yet have a gateway that works with iis 7 
(and 64-bit windows? can't recall the details now), which we needed, so we 
had to have one developed for us.

les


"Richard A. Pulliam" <clippersolutions@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:50f98b4$491c97f8$2af3d@news.alaska-software.com...
>I tried it several years ago and had all kinds of problems.  I remember I 
>had to write apps that will restart the server by trapping errors in the 
>log.  I like the idea of xb2net.
> No Apache required.
>
> Is anybody really successful with the use of XBase++ WAA and Apache? 
> Xb2net is an expensive third party product.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Richard A. Pulliam
> 138 Colina Circle
> Panama City Beach, Florida 32413
> Voice and Fax: 877-467-7588   Cell: 850-238-1203
> http://www.ClipperSolutions.com
>
>