RE: No 5250-based applications

Jim,

I think we need to distinguish between client-server and file-server.
Client-server for database work.  File-server for the type work performed by
MS Office, etc.  File-server may require powerful workstations that run big
applications.  In both client-server and file-server, the AS/400 may host
the files.  But, in client-server you're dealing with records - something
that a Web browser is well suited for.

In fact, in my opinion, it's better to develop an application that delivers
HTML to a browser, than to write a thick Visual Basic (for example)
application to query and update OS/400 hosted data.  The same day you finish
your program, all your users have access to it.  And, the program is easier
to write.

In-house developers may have the option of mixing 5250 and browser.  But,
users of commercial applications expect a more unified interface across the
entire application.  The guy trying to sell a mixed-breed application has a
tough job.  He hates to demo the 5250 screens after the browser.  He'll give
you some smooth smoozing at that point.

I don't think the HTML specification is complete.  But I foresee new
features added rather than existing features discarded.

Nathan.


> From: Jim Damato <jdamato@dollargeneral.com>

> I'm torn between whether a web-based user interface is a worthwhile goal
for
> all applications.  Client-server was initially developed to serve business
> needs that a terminal could not address.  If an application needed the
> ability to distribute and process data on the client, or a graphic
> presentation that was beyond the 80x25 characters of the terminal it could
> be a big win to develop a client-server application.  Pointy-haired
managers
> then dumbed it down to all applications.  Data entry and flat inquiry
> screens were converted to PC client apps.  Developers put effort into
> replacing functions that could not reap the benefits of client-server
> architecture.  Complexity was introduced to simple applications without
any
> true improvement to justify the effort and additional infrastructure.
>
> I like to say that web-based applications are an apology for
client-server.
> Part of the mess of client-server was the fat client presence on dozens of
> PC's.  The web centralizes the presentation software again.  Web apps
> support much  of the business needs and benefits of client-server, plus a
> few big benefits exclusive to the web.  But for simple inquiries,
text-based
> business functions, or data entry programs the browser doesn't provide any
> benefit over the terminal presentation.  It's really just a different type
> of terminal.
>
> There are some who said that client-server was the way and the light and
> that folks who left their apps on the green screen were going to be left
> behind.  Year later client-server apps are being gutted and rebuilt for
the
> web, as are those green screen apps that were "left behind."  Do you think
> that technology has reached a degree of maturity that will allow web apps
to
> EVOLVE into something better over the next few years?  Or are green screen
> apps, lingering client-server apps, and web apps going to be trashed the
> next time the technology shifts.
>
> I'm holding out for the empathic user interface myself...


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---