RE: Rochester's changing focus/CICS-CCP/iSeries -- MIDRANGE-L

<Cross-posted to M-L Non-Tech.  The first half is a non-tech issue, the last
half could go either way.>

<I would suggest any replies to the first half be posted on Non-Tech>


Paul, Brad

Thanks for your views.  See inline.

James Jay Toran (jjt)
Columbus, OH  USA
E-mail:  jt@ee.net



"Have a GREAT day...!  And a BETTER ONE TOMORROW~~~:-)" (sm)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Brad Jensen
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 12:24 AM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Rochester's changing focus/CICS-CCP/iSeries
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Raulerson" <praulerson@hot.rr.com>
> To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 9:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Rochester's changing focus/CICS-CCP/iSeries
>
>
> > Won't happen - but the merging of the product lines will be
> rough indeed.

Very true...  But not so hard as you might think.  Because it's being done
on several levels.  IBM has merged the images of the platforms by
re-branding all of them as the (e)Server.  I thought that made little sense
at the time, because I was looking at it from the POV of a loyal, dedicated,
passionate 400 user.  The AS/400 already WAS an exceedingly strong brand
name, and I couldn't see the point to changing that.  Nor could many in the
Community.  That really inflamed a lot of folks.  That, and Don's "State of
the Midrange" essentially brought about the AS/400 Advocacy Group.

But now I view that as an important step.  That was one element of a sound
strategy...



> >
> > BTW: Modern CICS is much easier to code, in assembler, COBOL, or
> even Fortran,
> > than the original "macro" level CICS stuff was. It also leads
> very quickly to good program
> > design and segmentation. The AS/400 gets around a lot of that
> with display formats and
> > external file definitions and so forth.
> >
> > -Paul
>
> I haven't coded for CICS, but I've heard it was like the old
> Burroughs mainframe coding - one program invocation would speak to
> all 100 or 500 terminals, on a transaction basis. Stateless
> transactions (like on the web) and you have to keep track of all
> the user states yourself - you are talking to all of them on the
> same program thread.
>
> The 400 programming model is that the program is talking to one
> terminal on a single thread, making the logic much simpler.
>
> (Somebody beat me and call me names if I am wrong.)

Sorry, Brad...  Can't oblige you with any beatings or name callings.

But it's even better than that.  The inherent design of the 400 is such that
a program simply talks to a file.  All files can be defined with one
language... DDS.

Furthermore, DDS is one of the best examples, in existence, of a right mix
of columnar and freeform.  Again, ALL files can be described through this
one language, and the importance of these two concepts is almost universally
overlooked.

Those guys that designed CPF sure knew what they were doing.  To be
uncharitable, the guys doing it now.. don't.

jt


"Have a GREAT day...!  And a BETTER ONE TOMORROW~~~:-)" (sm)


>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
> mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>