RE: Thats all folks!

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Joe Pluta wrote:
>
> So I fail to see what X-windows buys you that HTML doesn't.
>
> Personally, if you were to go to a non-HTML interface, I'd prefer some thing
> a bit more generic - an SGML-based language that would then be translated on
> the client to something graphical.  This would be the OBW, or Open Business
> Widget, specification.  All programs would adhere to this specification, and
> then you could truly plug in whatever interface you wanted.
>

I disagree with you about HTML.  HTML is really not the solution, it's
not designed to be a terminal data stream, it's designed for hypertext.
If we want a replacement for 5250, we want something that's going to have
a future, and HTML is just too limited.

For example, an application that continuously refreshes itself, displaying
updated statistics on the screen.   Not really possible with HTML.  Sure,
you can use things like JavaScript and Java to do this, but that's not
HTML, and in any case completely changes the idea.   Now, instead of just
writing an RPG application that displays graphically, you're writing parts
that run on the iSeries in RPG, parts that run on the PC in javascript,
and parts that run under a java JVM on the PC.   And, every web browser
displays java and javascript differently.  It's just too complicated.

Even if it were not complicated, you're still very limited with what
you can do with something like HTML.   It's fine for basic business apps,
but has almost no flexibility to go beyond that.  Even 5250 is more
flexible.

Then, there's the stateless nature of HTTP, which makes applications
difficult to write, especially applications that are by nature stateful
applications.

What I do think is a great idea is your idea of making an SGML-based
"Open Business Widget".  This is sounding exactly like the type of thing
that I'd like to see.   Though, I think, XML would fit the bill just as
well... we don't need SGML's additional capabilities for this.

> To me, substituting X-Windows for 5250 is simply treading water.

Can we refrain from calling it "X-Windows"?  Here's a quote from the
documentation for X11:

       The X Consortium requests that the following names be used
       when referring to this software:

                                   X
                            X Window System
                              X Version 11
                      X Window System, Version 11
                                  X11

       X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.


I don't really understand why it's "treading water".  It's got added
capabilities of displaying over a network that MS Windows doesn't have,
without any disadvantages that I know of (aside from the fact that MS
Windows has more software available for it).    That's assuming, of
course, that support for it was added to RPG software running on the
iSeries so we could develop apps quickly and easily.  Using the paradigms
that I suggested in previous messages.   Simply running it through PASE
isn't even as good as treading water.

I agree that a new system developed specifically for OS/400 would be
better yet, if done properly.    Just so that it's done in a way that
doesn't force us to run a specific OS as a client.   Just so that the
work is done on the iSeries, and troubleshooting etc can be done with
tools like WRKACTJOB, DSPJOBLOG, STRCPYSCN, STRDBG, etc.

The main thing I'd really hate to see is getting something in the
client/server paradigm where the half of the code is running on Windows and
half it is running on OS/400, and you have to install software on each PC.
Do something that allows "dumb" terminals, and open source operating
systems as well as MS Windows.   Do something that uses all of the
strengths of OS/400, and puts control on the iSeries...

but I've said all that already, so why am I saying it again?