Re: Accessing source members for editing in an IASP

> From: Jon Paris
>
> I'm afraid I don't agree with the rest of your rationale though.  The
> standard version uses the exact same workbench etc. as the advanced.  The
> extras are just that - extras.

Struts support isn't extra cost on any other platform that I know of.


> There's no bait and switch - all the tools
> you need for WebFacing etc. are in the standard bundle.

But there are additional Webfacing features in the advanced bundle.  So now
there are two versions of Webfacing - free and full-featured.


> Since not everyone
> wants/needs EJB support etc they have decided not to up the base price of
> WDS but rather to charge extra to those who need the extra
> features.  Sounds right to me.

EJB is the only thing I agree could be an "extra" feature.  The Tomcat test
environment, for example, is not an "extra".  In fact, someone trying to
support Tomcat is doing it because they can't afford the full WebSphere
layout, but they're trying desperately to stay with the iSeries.  Will they
continue to try even if you charge them extra for testing?

To me, it makes sense to charge end users for USING the software, but not to
charge developers for WRITING it, and if you must charge them to recoup your
development costs, certainly don't charge them extra for being productive.


> There's one other point that I think may be wrong in your comments - the
> standard version as far as I know includes a WAS test environment.  The
> advanced version includes _multiple_ test environments WAS 4, WAS
> 5, and WAS Express I think.

The concept of WAS Express is for it to be cheaper to use.  It seems
counterproductive to charge extra for a WAS Express test environment.

You and I disagree on a fundamental concept here.  I consider a WAS Express
test environment a basic usability feature.  It's not like EJB support,
which is only relevant to a tiny subsection of the user base.  A test
environment is part of basic development for web applications.  Charging
extra for something that is simply used to debug code doesn't seem right to
me.

Hey, I could be wrong.  Maybe everybody else thinks a debugger is an
extra-cost item.

Joe