|
-----Original Message----- From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nathan M. Andelin Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 3:57 PM To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: webfacing and competing products >> from: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> I'll add that they're all a technological dead end, because they >> rely on the 5250 data stream. That's what makes PSC/400 so >> much different and in my mind so superior. >I agree that PCS/400 is different. Screen scrapers extract data from >pre-formatted streams before applying their own formatting, while PCS >essentially transforms record buffers BEFORE any other formatting has >occurred. Nathan, I think the problem with screen scraping is that the new end user application is limited to the data provided by the host application that is being scraped from. The subfile record may only contain customer name and not customer number. Also, the subfile records may only contain a page of the records that the user is interested in working with. ( how can the user sort on order amount when the display buffer being scraped from only contains 10 of the 100 orders of the customer? ) Whether the data is scraped from a screen or from a pre dspf buffer, it still has the same limitations. -Steve
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.