Hi Aaron,
Imagine having a RPG native way to
> create browser and thick client apps from
the iSeries!
Browser communication via CGIDEV2 is almost as old as Visual Age for
RPG's thick client ability. Which is more popular, the one officially
developed as part of an IBM policy or the one developed as a technology
demonstrator? Is there a lesson in that?
This isn't a rant against IBM making money; if they don't earn a profit,
that's bad for us. It's a rant about the IBM policy dudes not listening
to the RPG developer (the Systemn i bread and butter) and then charging
us for being in the wrong market!
The simple fact is that WDSC is way ahead of the curve for the vast
majority of System i companies. That stinks for several reasons. I'll
name just one. IBM spent umpty squat millions to develop a tool that
includes the ability to:
* Build dynamic Web user interfaces with minimal coding using
standards-based JavaServer Faces (JSF) components
* Visually design and develop rich Web user interfaces using
drag-and-drop components in a Visual Page Designer
* Build data-driven Web pages with minimal coding and
point-and-click database connectivity
* Build rich Web user interfaces with performance and maintenance
characteristics of thin clients using JSF extensions
(http://www-306.ibm.com/common/ssi/fcgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&appname=Demonstration&htmlfid=897/ENUS207-030)
It is an undisputed fact that the vast majority of developers on System
i do _not_ do any of these things. WDSCi is a solution looking for a
problem. The anonymous IBM policy dude is to be commended for getting
ahead of the curve (although he missed the open source thing [1]) and
creating WDSC in advance of the desire for it.
He also deserves to be whacked in the back of his head for expecting RPG
programmers who don't use it to pay _extra_ for stuff we can't use.
--buck
[1] No Linux/OpenBSD support. No source for the System i parsers, not
even documentation for the extension points they consume or expose.
