|
> From: furgalj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Precisely what constitutes "business programming," and what would be > acceptable proof, one way or the other? What is a real OO solution and > what is a true functional/procedural solution? Where and why is one more > appropriate than the other, or is it just a matter of taste or what you're > comfortable with? These are excellent questions, and they are the type of thing I originally envisioned this list would address. Where does Java work and where does RPG work? Can we design frameworks where we can plug RPG in for speed and then replace that with pure Java for performance? Are there design patterns outside the ones that The Big Four envisioned that are more amenable to the hard work of business applications? Paul has already gone a long way toward creating a set of such design patterns for the file maintenance portion of the business application spectrum. But even that statement is loaded; it assumes that you agree with me that there really *IS* a spectrum of business applications. So perhaps the first thing we need to hash out is a consensus as to whether there are indeed definable sets of business application programs. I'd be happy to once again put up my three categories and have the rest of list take potshots at it. 1. Master File Maintenance: These programs maintain master files. They include the Work With types of displays as well as the popup selection windows that other applications use. 2. Executive Information Inquiries: These programs provide multi-dimensional analysis of complex data relationships in the database, including sorting, selection, totaling, drilldown, and even reporting and graphing functions. Side efforts include the ability to provide these results in response to a variety of request types including web services and remote procedure calls, and to output the results in formats ranging from PDF files to standard spreadsheet formats. 3. Transaction Processing: These programs act on the business rules of the company to post external data (orders, inventory transactions, sales figures) into historical and summary files as required to run the business. This includes the standard business applications such as cost rollups, MRP generations, finite forward scheduling, three-way matching, currency conversions, order processing and all the other things that require multiple files and database switches for processing. > Let's not kill ourselves > trying to define the whole world of business application programming, but > maybe like the TP-C DBMS benchmarks, someone, or a group of us could come > up with a set of fairly typical operations and transactions. Design and > code these in RPG, COBOL, Java, C++, etc. and discuss them. Like real > newsgroup/mailing lists used to do in the "olden days" of the '80's & > '90's. Who knows, this might actually lead to something somewhere, maybe > even a class or a book. Yup, this is exactly what I'd like to see. A while back I did benchmarks comparing SQL to native I/O. While it won't be nearly as cut and dried to address the more sophisticated programming of a price lookup, it could still be to our community advantage to at least see if we can't come up with some common definitions of these functions. And hell, I KNOW there are one or two folks out there who would LOVE to see us try this and have it turn out that I was dead wrong <chuckle>. And if that's truly the case, then I'm perfectly willing to eat some crow, because it's more important to me that the community be strong than I be right. Not that I like being wrong. <grin> Joe
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.