RE: alternative to WebFacing

> However, I personally question the value of transition technologies.  I've
> heard too many complaints from people who bought into that idea.  The
> biggest complaint seems to be that the GUI is still paired and locked with
> the  5250 data stream of the legacy application.  It leads to contrived
> restrictions in the GUI.    A transition technology is one that
> you probably
> wouldn't use to design or build a new application.  But some people (not
> having deep pockets) find it hard to break away from a transition
> technology, after they've adopted one.
>
> Nathan M. Andelin
> www.relational-data.com

I agree, Nathan.  That's why I designed the revitalization process.  The
idea is simple:

1. Decouple the business logic and the user interface
2. Redesign the user interface using the existing business logic
3. Redesign the business logic

It's simple, fast and flexible.  You may never have to go beyond step two
for many of your programs, which is as far as the 5250-bound solutions go.
But for those that need to be redeployed as true client/server applications,
you can then go to the next step.

The next step is going to be to design a language that defines business
applications.  I think the folks who are basing the concept only on
transactions (such as XAML) are missing the boat.  The idea is to be able to
define at a macro level the entire application process.  With this approach,
you can first define your existing legacy applications, then include them in
an overall business process.  Once you've done that, you can then rewrite
pieces and insert them into the overall application flow.

Revitalization will do that quite well.

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---