|
midrange.com
Careful on some of the models you recommend. WebFacing counts against the
5250 load. And with IBM milking the 5250 cash cow for every dime they can,
I'd really think before you try to get a bunch of web users to start
whacking against your 5250 load. I tried to bring up this argument with my
boss. He seems hot-to-trot regarding WebFacing. His argument is that if
you throw enough money into your 400 then the 5250 load is not a problem.
With this attitude, is there any wonder why IBM treats us so nice?
Rob Berendt
==================
A smart person learns from their mistakes,
but a wise person learns from OTHER peoples mistakes.
"Joe Pluta"
<joepluta@PlutaBrot To:
<MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
hers.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: RE: alternative to
WebFacing
owner-midrange-l@mi
drange.com
06/22/2001 09:43 AM
Please respond to
MIDRANGE-L
Jim, what is "too small to run WebSphere"? Is it possible that you might
be
able to upgrade?
Low-end model 270's run WebSphere, and you'll be thrilled with the
performance. If you can completely web-enable your application, then you
can run a 0CPW model 270, which has a base cost of around $10,000. At that
point, you'd only be able to use green screens for occasional maintenance -
more than one interactive session will kill the machine - but it might be
an
alternative to trying to add five more pounds of ... stuff to an already
overloaded bag.
If you can do that, you can use an approach like my revitalization
architecture. It's fast and easy to implement. Or, if you can afford some
interactive CPW, you can use IBM's webfacing. Either one of these, though,
uses WebSphere as its primary interface.
If you're adamant about staying away from WebSphere, you can use my
approach, but run your web interface on a small attached webserver running
something like Linux or Widnows/2000. Supposedly webfacing will work this
way as well, but it may require WebSphere on the other box. My
architecture
works with any webserver. With my design, you can also use a thick
graphical client rather than a browser.
Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
> [mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Jim Franz
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 6:38 AM
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com; IGNITE400 MEMBERS LIST
> Subject: alternative to WebFacing
>
>
> is there an alternative to IBMs WebFacing for a system too
> small to run WebSphere? Prefer without the run-time license
> of like Seagull. Something reliable?
> jim
+---
| 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
+---
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.
