RE: Hmmmm.....$1 Billion

[michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Probably because there's only about 3 people in North America that use
VARPG. Tough to find good help. However, I'll bet there are several
orders of magnitude greater number of people that know C#.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Hmmmm.....$1 Billion
> From: "Booth Martin" <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, March 04, 2005 11:01 am
> To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> If you are going to lock into Microsoft for your users anyway (and using 
> net is exactly that slippery slope) then why not use VARPG?   That is vastly
> underrated as a solution and a lot of fun too.. 

>  
> ---------------------------------

> Booth Martin

> http://www.martinvt.com

> ---------------------------------

> -------Original Message-------

>  
> From: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion

> Date: 03/04/05 09:51:12

> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion

> Subject: Re: Hmmmm.....$1 Billion

>  
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:07:07 -0500, Wilt, Charles <CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx

> > > [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Joe Pluta

> > > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:53 AM

> > > To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'

> > > Subject: RE: Hmmmm.....$1 Billion

> > >

> > >

> > > > From: Steve Richter

> > > >

> > > > as I understand it, the reason interactive jobs dont

> > > > allow threads is because the underlying OS400 code is too

> > > buggy to be

> > > > made threadsafe.

> > >

> > > What exactly do you mean by buggy?  There are actual faults

> > > in the code

> > > today?  Or there are design issues that prevent making the code

> > > threadsafe?  (These are two completely different things, by the way.)

> > > Furthermore, who told you this?  Someone who worked on the

> > > code?  Or is

> > > currently working on the code?  Have you actually seen ANY of

> > > this first

> > > hand?  Have you written programs that fail?  Have you

> > > submitted PMRs to

> > > address specific issues?

> > >

> > > Or are you just repeating whatever you might have heard second-hand?

> > > (We call this the Dan Rather school of journalism.)

> > >

> > > Joe

> > >

> >

> > It's not buggy, was a simple cost vs. benefit design decision according to
> Patrick Botz,

> >

> > "The reason interactive jobs were not enabled to support multi-threaded
> applications is that large pieces of the internal OS which they use are not
> capable of handling multiple threads.  The cost to multi-thread enable the
> whole system was huge.  Therefore the decision was made (way back when this
> was originally done) to support multiple threads in those environments that
> did not require an entire rewrite of major portions of the internals of the
> OS."

> >

> > in the thread Steve started about this back in February:

> > http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200502/msg00626.html

> >

> > Nor is the original lack of threads a bug.

> >

> > Steve, get over it! If you want to provide such fancy UI's to your users,
> don't try doing it in 5250. Simple as that.

>  
> It is not that simple Charles.  Once the user signs on to the

> interactive subsystem there are all of these restrictions, ( multi

> threading, 5250 limitations )  which make it almost theoretically

> impossible to give the user the interactive usage of the system that

> they want.

>  
> Which means you have to scrap interactive entirely and start from

> where? I understand the whole Java / client access thing but that all

> entails a large framework that I have to buy into.    I want to code

> ..NET front ends to the as400.  It is all doable and a lot of fun to

> work on, but there is a lot of infrastructure that the programmer is

> responsible for in that setting. There is also a real question of how

> secure are your connections between the client and server.   When your

> server program on the as400 listens on a private port on the 400 for a

> private data stream from the PC client, how sure are you that that

> link is secure?

>  
> The interactive subsystem provides a secure framework from which

> programs can run.  IBM should enhance the interactive subsystem so it

> works in the client / server setting.

>  
> -Steve

> --

> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list

> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx

> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,

> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l

> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx

> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives

> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

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