Looking the same is all very well - tweaking fonts and colours is none too difficult - but what really matters is, is how similar are Rekall and RekallWeb when it comes to functionality. How similary do they operate? First, there are many differences between Rekall and RekallWeb that really do mean that things are different, so that some things will work in Rekall but will not work in RekallWeb. There are also differences that mean that while there are things that Rekall can do and which RekallWeb can do as well, but which you really would not want to do in RekallWeb
The most fundemental differences arise because (a) there is no permenant connection between the web browser and the web server (unlike Rekall which has a permentantly open connection to the database) and (b) the turn-around time of sending a request to the web server and receiving a reply is quite large (though RekallWeb helps to address this). The first means, for instance, that there is no possibility of RekallWeb doing record locking in the database, so some other client may have changed the database between a form being displayed and the user submitting a change. Well, it could, but we'd have to rely on session timeouts and other such tricks. Also, each time the user submits a change from a form, the server end must reload records from the database, rather than once when the form is opened; it is not practical to download very large amounts of data into the browser (or send them all back to the server).
But, if these differences are acceptable, then using RekallWeb can provide a relatively quick and easy way to build web-based interfaces to databases. Relatively is one of those weasel words, but we hope you get the idea.
Lets move on the the basics of how RekallWeb works.