|
> From: Trevor Perry > > This is true from experience in the real world - saying it in CAPS does > not > make it NOT TRUE. What I said was: "generally iSeries customers find it > requires heavy iSeries resource usage for a significantly slower user > response time". What you said "generally" is absolutely wrong. I work in the real world as well, Trevor, and my clients simply do not see the results you see. Unless you have a poorly written system, JSP is nearly as fast as green screen. Sure, you can write bad JSP code. You can also write bad CGI code or use a bad tool. But JSP is not inherently slow because it is JSP. Am I clear on this? > Regarding "heavy iSeries resources", you agree with me when you say > "require > about 500MB of dedicated memory". Add to that the CPW requirements. When > you > are being sold WAS from IBM, you are always told that it has a minimim > requirement of 300CPW or 500CPW - depending on model. For a LOT of iSeries > customers, this is a ~significant~ resource requirement and can cost tens > of thousands of dollars - along with the additional memory. I run WAS just fine on the smallest model 270, which has 370CPW. This is a very small machine. What sort of machine are your clients running on, Trevor? The beauty of J2EE is the ability to offload it (something that simply can't be done with RPG-CGI or Net.Data solutions). Because of this, I also have clients running J2EE in conjunction with beige boxes, because they can offload the web serving requirements. > I said "IBM has offered various graphical user interfaces" and then "for a > significantly slower user response time". Even IBM admits that Webfacing > will cause the response times to be reduced. Neither have they sold HATS > as a way to improve the response times. WAS has historically reduced > performance so often, that many iSeries customers won't go near any new > version. If you want to complain about Webfacing or HATS, be my guest. I didn't bring it up. But don't try rewriting your words. You did not tie bad performance to WebFacing, you specifically stated that WAS was "in its infancy" and that it was slow. I disagree completely. I am talking about simple, basic J2EE architecture, which performs very well and negates all your arguments against WAS. I don't even know what you mean by WAS historically reducing performance. The faster they make the JVM, the faster WAS works, and believe me, the JVM is getting better and better. Ask anyone at IBM who works with it, like Blair Wyman. And by the way, WAS is hardly in its infancy. WAS is in its fourth generation now: WAS 1/2, WAS 3, WAS 4 and now WAS 5/6. > You may be able to improve response times with your technical hands on > solution, however, most CxO will not see or hear about your solution when > they are talking to IBM. "Technical hands-on solution"? What in the world does THAT mean? Is this some kind of code word for "programming"? Is programming now a bad thing in your world, Trevor? As to what IBM sells, that's not my point. I'm simply addressing your misstatements. As long as you try to depict WAS and J2EE as slow, I will continue to say that you're wrong, and provide proof to back it up. Joe
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.