RE: Weigh in on Fast400 . . .

[Scott Mildenberger <Smildenber@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

If the applications are written to separate the display logic from the main
code and the communication between the two parts is via something like data
queues then you can have an application using physical terminals where most
of the processing all occurs in batch.  The interactive workload would be
minimal.  We have had the capability to build our applications this way for
a very long time (although we usually don't!).  And an application built
this way could very easily support another type of interface such as GUI or
Web with no changes.  Wow, modern looking app's or terminals and either one
doesn't need a machine with a lot of interactive processing power.  The
development is more complex but I believe once the framework is in place you
should be able to develop new app's at the same pace as done today.

If I could just get this accomplished where I work. :)

Scott Mildenberger



> -----Original Message-----
> From: thomas@inorbit.com [mailto:thomas@inorbit.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 9:54 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Weigh in on Fast400 . . .
>
>
>
> Of course, if the _actual requirement_ is physical terminals
> rather than terminal emulators, it's not quite the same question.
>