RE: WebFacing: Is this really Heaven? NO, it's hell!!!!

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/