|
Hi Joe. Joe's correct. I need to be fair. I'm NOT a user of PCS/400. Compared to other IBM OPTIONS, My statements are pretty accurate across the board. The key items Joe highlights for me given the current WebFacing release are: 1) IBM's "accidental error" on forcing an interactive CPW tax on WebFacing ( vs PCS/400 without interactive CPW hits ) IS a "hidden but real" cost to the WebFacing approach ( IS ANYONE FROM IBM ROCHESTER LISTENING ANYWHERE ON THIS FORUM ????). I assume once they understand the magnitude of this error ( it's not just WebFacing but the platform that becomes much less attractive for new and existing customers), they will correct it ... 2) WebFacing does run very well for many scenarios BUT I absolutely agree that it doesn't run well in any DIALUP scenarios on normal dial speed lines. ( We DO know how to put it on the "Mason" diet to speed that up BUT that is NOT the base WebFacing product at all..). Yes, Joe's PCS/400 has a significant difference in the dialup scenario today. We are getting larger page sizes than 10K but those perform very well even on small servers IF USERS are on high speed connections. 3) Anything else I'm not qualified to comment on since I don't use PCS/400. Is it worth looking at? Yes. >From what I've heard from Joe so far, there are clearly significant differences in how the 2 products are built and (presumably) differences in what they are intended for as application scenarios and customer usage. WebFacing has certain design goals on how they manage DDS edits, cross browser architecture, NLS etc they've had to meet . If anyone has other questions, let us know ... thanks... Jim Mason --- Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> wrote: > > From: Jim Mason > > > > We do WebFacing consulting. We've taught this > stuff > > to IBMers and customers as well. > > I just want to make sure that the opposing viewpoint > is heard here. I am > extremely biased, since PSC400 (as showcased in > iSeries Network magazine) is > my product, but I think users need to know how it > stacks up against the > supposedly "free" WebFacing. > > > > "Out of the box", basic WebFaced applications > often > > don't meet your user's requirements for a web > > interface ESPECIALLY if the web users are new to > the > > app.. > > Out of the box, PSC400 generates a 5250 emulation > mode application that > looks and feels almost exactly like the original > green screen application. > This allows you to start using the web-based version > of your application > without a ton of retraining. But PSC400 also > generates a JSP that is > designed to be customized, which we call the "web > application" mode. > > > > My experience is we can get response times of 1 to > 2 > > seconds OVER dedicated Internet connections. We > even > > got that on a 170 running Tomcat. Unfortunately, > > DIALUP users NEVER see good response times ... > > We get subsecond response time on an intranet - in > fact, we often get times > in the tens of milliseconds. This is directly > related to the amount of HTML > we generate. Currently, a typical page is 8-10KB, > and our target is to cut > that down to about 5KB. DSL connections have > subsecond response times, and > our pages actually work over a 28.8 dialup, although > it's not fast - about > 2-3 seconds per page, which is what you would expect > for 10KB over a 28.8 > line (remembering that modem speed is measured in > BITS, while page size is > measured in bytes). WebFacing generates > significantly larger pages - I have > heard page sizes of 150KB. That's why even over a > DSL connection WebFacing > is very slow. > > > > We've run WebSphere v3.5, v4.0 and Tomcat v3.2.3. > > They all work. We've also customized the > generated > > apps to do other things.... > > Here WebFacing has us beat. We don't even bother > with V4.0, since it's an > extra cost item. We only work with standard > edition. However, we should > have the Tomcat version tested and ready for release > shortly. > > > > I DO think they produce a good "base" application > that > > can be customized FAR cheaper than writing > ANYTHING > > else. It is a great fit IF your web intends to > reuse > > a reasonable portion of your existing 5250 stuff. > The > > "out of the box" WebFaced app really only works > well > > as an interface for existing users ( that DOES > happen > > on intranets alot ...). > > And this statement is the one I most disagree with. > The idea of "FAR" > cheaper depends very much on how you measure cost. > First, WebFacing > requires interactive CPW *AND* WebSphere. PSC400 > does not require > interactive CPW, and so can lower the cost of your > hardware by as much as > 75%. For example, a model 820_2395 with 35 > interactive CPW is $40K, while > the same machine with 240 interactive is nearly > $200K, and is in a higher > software tier (P20 vs. P10) to boot. > > Applications can also be customized quite easily, by > simply changing the > generated JSP. You can easily make multiple > versions of the user interface > available, including the 5250 emulation mode, all > using the same RPG > program. > > 1. The programs are completely converted with a > single command > 2. The HTML is much smaller and thus has much faster > response time > 3. You can convert entire systems overnight > 4. Installation and conversion can all be done from > a green screen command > line without any PC software > > Given all the above, I think PSC400 is very > competitive with WebFacing. > > Joe > > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Java Programming on and around the > iSeries / AS400 (JAVA400-L) mailing list > To post a message email: JAVA400-L@midrange.com > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: > http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/java400-l > or email: JAVA400-L-request@midrange.com > Before posting, please take a moment to review the > archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/java400-l. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.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.
midrange.com
