AJAX
I think your question boils down to, "Should my web application generate HTML on the client side or on the server side?" Client-side generation communicates to the server using AJAX, although the X (XML) has generally been replaced with JSON, but most people still call it AJAX because it sounds better. Server-side, the server just makes HTML on the server.
I have a lot of experience with XML and almost none with JSON. Everything I know about XML makes me suggest that you use JSON if at all possible.
AJAX Pros:
- Send less data over HTTP(S) so they can run faster.
- The server is essentially a web service so that other people (or you) can write their own clients. This may help when creating a mobile version of your site. Also, many inventions become popular for reasons their creator never intended. Services are friendlier to people finding new uses for your code.
- Looks like a newer application
AJAX Cons:
- Debugging JavaScript
- Complexity?
- The stuff you can do with JavaScript is often completely impossible for blind or handicapped people to use.
- May require more code total (bigger overall storage on your embedded device)
Client/Server
All web applications use client-server architecture. The HTTP protocol forces web applications to behave that way. AJAX uses a work-around for that design limitation, but the basic underlying model of HTTP is still client-server. I wouldn't get hung up on the whole thing about the best way to apply MVC to web applications. If you have to do MVC for political reasons, look at how Ruby/Rails does it. Actually, Rails is a great architecture to copy (or use).
Service vs. App.
A good service is almost always better than an application. But making a good service is hard! You may need to make the application before you can write a well-enough designed spec for a service. Don't make your job more difficult than it needs to be. For version 1, focus on making a great application. Until your application is relatively stable and you are sure it meets your user's requirements, having a service probably won't do you any good anyway. Designing the wrong service too early is a waste of time that keeps on wasting as you try to fix your service interface, and deal with the massive refactoring of both server and client code that will follow.
C/Web
Wow. I worked in C and Assembly for 3 years before I switched to web development. I cannot think of a worse language to write a web application in - especially from a security point of view. Input validation and output escaping are so critical... SANS releases a list of the most common errors every year. Buffer overflows, injections, cross-site issues (improper output encoding)... All of these errors are really easy to make in C or assembly. At least a language like Java has a String which is immune to overflows and an exception handling mechanism that generally prevents off-by-one errors from allowing malicious code to access system memory. Not to mention handling international character sets (use UTF-8 when possible).
If you need to use C for memory or firmware reasons, then that's what you have to do. Just be careful!
Browser Support
The first step to making a web application is discovering which browsers will be used by your clients? W3Schools and Wikipedia are both good sources of general statistics, but YMMV.
Where I work now we currently validate that our application only creates valid XHTML 1.0 transitional HTML. We also use the specific Doctype and formatting necessary to avoid Quirks Mode in IE, which makes cross-browser HTML easier to write (see tips on my blog). We test on the latest 3 versions of IE, plus Firefox and Chrome on Windows and Linux (Safari uses the same rendering engine as Chrome). With that validation and testing, our application pretty much works everywhere (Windows, Mac, Linux, iPhone, Android, etc.) except the BlackBerry.
The BlackBerry has never had a real browser with JavaScript, so we don't support it. BlackBerry users are used to not having a real web browser, so they don't complain. Maybe that's changing? I would try to ask a few clients what browsers they are using and make sure to test with those browsers.
Summary
All web sites are built on HTML and HTTP. Have a good reference for these technologies at hand while you are making your application. In the course of making an application, even with a toolkit, you will run across issues that require a basic understanding these technologies in order to solve them.
You probably also need to be comfortable with CSS, and image compression in order to make something that looks decent and responds quickly. JavaScript, web-servers, and browsers are additional areas of knowledge that you will ultimately need.
If you build your HTML on the server-side, your code base will probably be smaller and you may not need to learn JavaScript. The server-side model means your programmers will be writing (C?) code that generates HTML that they can look at directly before it is sent to the client. The AJAX model means your programmers will be writing JavaScript that generates HTML. I'm not aware of a lot of tools for validating or even viewing the HTML code generated by JavaScript within a browser, making it more difficult to program correctly.
Where I work now, we use a hybrid approach which occasionally involves Java code that generates JavaScript that generates HTML. If you guys are new to web development, that's not the place to start. I guess I would have to say that unless you have compelling reasons to use an AJAX model, I'd start with the older server-side-HTML-generation model and see how far it gets you.
Most client-server applications can be installed in a "standalone setup", where the client and server machine are the same, as you wrote, but that does not make them a "standalone application". Such a system is still a client/server application, and the interprocess communication between the client application process and the database process will typically happen through a network protocol like TCP/IP. Also, installation and administration typically require almost the same effort as on two separate machines.
Of course, applications specificially made for "standalone usage" are typically optimized for that scenario, for example, by accessing the database directly from the client application process, which eliminates the need for (typically slower) interprocess communication. Or they have still two processes for client app and database, but those communicate by using "shared memory", which (on most operating system, see here for execeptions) supports only non-distributed scenarios. This makes the applications more lightweight and easier to install or administer, but you cannot easily connect to that database from a second PC.
Of course, lots of DB systems (like SQL Server) are smart enough to use TCP/IP for a connection to a another machine, and switch to shared memory automatically when they detect client and server beeing on the same machine. I would still call such a system a client/server application.
As an example in the context of Microsoft Databases, there is SQL Server Compact Edition which is specifially made for such standalone applications, but not for client/server usage. A very popular example from the freeware world is SqLite. And if you are looking for a full-featured relational database system which can switch between a "stand alone mode" (using shared memory, but easy to install without a background service) and "client server mode" (using TCP/IP) I would recommend SQL Anywhere.
Best Answer
A quick non-academic view:
Dynamic model:
Thread pool:
Mixed model: