> Option 1 will be cheaper but will need more programming.
> Option 2 will be more expensive but probably less error
> prone and less programming.

I think your assessment of the two options is mostly correct, however
I would add an additional advantage to option 2: flexibility. That
option will give you much greater scope to add other functionality and
features in the future. **IF** this option is viable to you client
(if they can justify the cost) then it really is the best solution.
With such a network in place they can even consider inter-office
messaging etc.

As an option 3...

My major client has 6 branch offices. We setup a frame-relay network
between the branches and the head office and installed MS terminal
server in the head office. The branches are all permanently connected
to the head office, their actual desktop sessions are running on the
head office terminal server (with only screen and keyboard updates
traversing the network). This has some really nice advantages...

- installation and maintenance is almost entirely on the head office
machine

- the application was able to be built without concern for slow
network speeds

- the users in the branches can also run other applications such as
office, outlook etc. All on the HO terminal servers, so branches can
actually share files between themselves as well as HO.

- many of the branches run special "terminals" (we use NCD ThinStar
terminals). These terminals have no moving parts (no fans, no HDD
etc) and come with the terminal server client pre-installed. Just
plug them in, no installation, no maintenance. If they fail just plug
in a new one.

- we seem to be able to run about 6-8 users over a single 64k link.
In fact, according to the providers statistics we should be able to
fit more.

IMO this is a great option, but it does cost more. If you use the
Citrix Metafram add-on to terminal server (or if you use Win2K
terminal server), you are supposed to be able to setup secure internet
connections between the client and the terminal server (running the
client in an internet browser). I have not tried this, but it may
reduce the annual networking costs of such a setup.

Note: I have just discovered a Java implementation of a terminal
server client. This would make it possible to connect to an MS
terminal server and run windows apps on that server from a Linux, Max
or other machine with JVM support.

> I am a single programmer and this is my first project of
> this size, I sometimes feel I have bite of more
> than I can chew. :-))

I know exactly how you feel :-)


Geoff Worboys
Telesis Computing