Re: FAST400 alive and well???

["Nathan M. Andelin" <nandelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Chuck Lewis"
> See you got that email too. I would have thought they
> would have had to setup shop somewhere else besides
> England to escape IBM legal (not that I am encouraging
> that !)...

They sent me an email too.  One interesting side-note.  According to Dave
Slater at IBM, one of his goals is to "Convert the WebFacing runtime support
so that WebFaced applications run in batch mode and avoid the
cost/performance penalties associated with interactive execution."

The question is how will IBM do it?  The easiest solution would be for IBM
to do something like FAST400, which would be to set the bit that currently
flags a Webfaced job as interactive.  But that would probably irritate folks
at Jacada and Pluta Brothers who were forced to come up with their own
alternatives to IBM's Workstation Interface in order to solve interactive
performance penalties.

Will IBM's Webfacing product continue to use the existing *DSPF and
Workstation Interface?  Or will IBM do what it requires it's competition to
do.  That is, design an alternative interface.  It seems to me that IBM
could run into trouble if their applications were able to use Interactive
features (existing workstation interface) without an interactive penalty,
but the products of other developers could not.

Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com