Re: No 5250-based applications -- MIDRANGE-L

Jim/Steve

I think it also worth keeping in mind that the web/browser client doesn't 
care where the data or service is served from. This seems to me to be 
somewhat different form the client server things I have seen in the past 
which always seemed to be very particular about which server they would 
interact with - thats if they werent written with a particular server in mind.

The "server" in this case could be off-loading data requests to another 
box, building the data itself as a CGI or even redirecting you somewhere 
more appropriate. The permutations are endless it seems: the server could 
be anything and/or everything.

The browser is the "lowest common denominator" terminal ... kinda like 
VT-100 except connectible to lots of things. And the things it connects to 
all speak a common presentation language. Or languages. Or dialect. 
Whichever your particular slant on it prefers :)

Since the browser is extendable in a way a terminal is not, its also 
upgradable in a way terminals never were. So its a better way of investing 
your dollars if your browser can connect you to all hosts. I don't mind 
having a couple of pieces of equipment on my desk, but the users ? well... 
I'll leave that to your particular experience to assess.

Personally, I think Nathan's goal is going to end up the reality for most 
of us, but hey... maybe I just can't see the next wave :)

Regards
Evan Harris

> >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
>
>
>jim,
>I think it is important to keep in mind that the user interface is only half
>of what the web based client has to offer.  The other half is the universal
>connectivity of the web device. Any device smart enough to have an ip addr
>and talk ip can connect to the server system.  That is a big advance and
>reduction in price from the days of remote controllers and switched/leased
>lines.
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.
> >
> >> "The challenge is in getting there."
> >
> >The challenge is getting there before something better takes its place.
> >
> >
> >I'm holding out for the empathic user interface myself...
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Nathan M. Andelin [mailto:nathanma@haaga.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:44 PM
> >To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> >Subject: Re: No 5250-based applications
> >
> >
> >While I somewhat agree with James and Scott (see their comments below), I
> >believe it's possible to reach a point where a reliable and full-featured
> >Web application can be deployed under OS/400 in the same amount of time as
>a
> >5250 application.  Actually, this has been a personal goal of mine.
> >
> >When I reach that point, I want the HTML user interface to offer
>performance
> >and productivity comparable to it's 5250 counterpart.  I think that's
> >possible, but depends partly on IBM.  It takes more CPU, memory, and
> >bandwidth to generate an HTML data stream.
> >
> >This may be the heart of the Interactive vs. Batch debate.  If I develop a
> >Web application that offers functionality comparable to it's 5250
> >counterpart, but requires hardware that's 20 times more expensive to
>support
> >the same number of users, then people will stick with the 5250 application.
> >
> >Or will they?  Developers and end-users may simply migrate to hardware that
> >offers better price vs. performance for Web applications.  How many iSeries
> >shops that have favored Windows over OS/400 for Web development?  Would
>that
> >explain the reliability concerns and higher development cost?
> >
> >If IBM drops the price of iSeries hardware to better support OS/400 based
> >Web applications, is IBM abandoning its traditional customer base?  In my
> >case, the answer is no!  I believe that HTML, etc. will offer a better user
> >interface than 5250 in the long term.  In my opinion, it's not just for
> >e-business.
> >
> >The challenge is in getting there.
> >
> >Nathan.
> >
> >
> >> From: "James W. Kilgore" <eMail@James-W-Kilgore.com>
> >>
> >
> >> We have a small number of clients (45) and we are a small company.  We
> >> write what we can afford to write (5250) and our clients (also small
> >> $1M->$3M/mo) use it.
> >>
> >> Why? It's the lowest cost to produce and the lowest cost to purchase and
> >> IT WORKS!
> >
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:52:23 -0500 (CDT)
> >> From: Scott Klement <klemscot@klements.com>
> >> Subject: Re: No 5250-based applications
> >>
> >
> >> It's also a whole lot quicker and cheaper to develop a 5250 app.  And
> >> they tend to be significantly more stable.  (Especially if the 5250 is
> >> running on a terminal and not a MS-Windows-hunk-of-garbage-PC)
> >>
> >> Running 5250 saves us tens of thousands of dollars each year -- and we're
> >> a small company.
> >>
> >
> >
> >+---
> >| 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
> >+---
> >+---
> >| 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
> >+---
> >
>
>+---
>| 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
>+---

+---
| 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
+---