|
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 +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.