RE: Weigh in on Fast400 . . .

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

James,

Thanks for your comments.  Not trying to pat myself on the back, but see
comments inline...

jt



> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of James W. Kilgore
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:58 AM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Weigh in on Fast400 . . .
> Importance: High
>
>
> Brad, all,
>
> Since we're all thinking out loud about this....
>
> I've never done this sort of thing, but if the I/O routines
> necessary to support
> a SPECIAL device would interface with the existing EXFMT, READC,
> etc. opcodes
> then a change in the F spec from WORKSTN to SPECIAL would be the ultimate
> transition tool.

Works fine...  The key is using the PLIST (or whatever) parm on the F-Spec.
There are a few (ha, ha) details involved in making it usable, however...;-)


>
> Since the compiler folks periodically ask what we would like to
> have added, I'd
> vote my whole $100 on something along the lines of a new device
> code to handle
> data messaging in a client/server environment where the client
> could be anything
> that could handle the task.  It wouldn't matter if the client was
> a VB program,
> a Java applet, a sockets program, whatever.

When News/400 put up a list for comments re: V5R1 RPG, I suggested exactly
that.  One of the reasons I'm working on this now is that, IMV, the
compiler-developers blew my comments and questions off.  (I previewed the
first thing I ever posted to Barbara Morris, who was real nice, so I don't
intend anything personal.)


>
> If IBM can't/won't do this, possibly some really clever bunch of
> people could
> come up with a compiler patch so that any program with a WORKSTN
> device would
> use this patch to communicate with a WORKSTN controller emulator.
>
> just a thought...

No patch needed... nor recommended.  I agree with Ed Fishel's views on
that...  Similarly, I have avoided going down to MI, so far (not just
because I don't know it very well) because it often just complicates things,
for the perceived benefits it provides.


>
> Brad Jensen wrote:
>
> > The conversation about this on this list has got me thinking also.
> > Why not have a tool the replaces the 5250 screen processing with a
> > web interface? They are both transaction oriented.
> >
> <<SNIP>>