I don't think you can say that *DSPF and CHAIN are "frameworks". These are
features
delivered as a black box you can use. A framework is not a black box. It is
there
explicitly and consists of the basic implementation of several problem
domains.
What would you consider Hibernate then? I guess I would consider that an
ORM framework. I think the difference between Hibernate and
CHAIN/READ/READE/SETLL/WRITE/CLOSE/%open/etc is that RPG does a better job
of hiding the implementation and it is much more stable (I lived through v2
of Hibernate).
Furthermore, web apps are client/server. I.e. the browser always acts as a
client making requests to the server. But 5250 / *DSPF is not client/
server.
I would argue that they are BOTH client server, but not necessarily in the
traditional sense (so I kinda agree with you). Afterall they both send data
down to the client which is rendered with a thin client application, and
they both send events back to the server. They are different in my mind in
that 5250 has more of a proprietary impelementation (which has benefited it
greatly IMO).
You are bound to 24x80 characters because IBM never bothered to update this
architecture to modern times (i.e. employ a graphical UI at least). So now
we must
resolve to the error-prone web software stack to build "i" apps with a
"decent"
user interface.
Agreed. A fundemental flaw.
It complete app is loaded everytime.
I am sure Joe will speak to this, but I believe the javascript and css files
are only downloaded once, correct? I am not saying they may not be big the
first time down.
If apps are built with EGL then we do not have that one language / one
environment anymore and i suspect that the advantage of the "i" is going to
diminish if every "i" app is going to be build this way (although i dont
expect this considering the inert RPG community).
Exactly. And this is a fundemental flaw. But then again it is fairly
obvious to me that IBM only intends EGL+RPG to be a temporary stepping stone
with the end goal of having all the coding in EGL. I would agree that
having all the code in EGL will make it much easier to develop/maintain,
just like using only Microsoft technologies makes that environment work much
better. In the end it is effort it takes to adopt new and the wisdom to
utilize what you have already "purchase" through many years of usage (i.e.
ROI for OS400/RPG/DB2).
But to shun OO with saying bogus as it's not suited to business logic just
to explain why EGL is procedural and why thats better is simply Bogus.
I think I am more in the camp of shunning bad OO implementation of BL which
is more often the case than not because of the opportunities Java gives you
to shoot yourself in the foot with an OO gun.
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
midrange.com
