Re: Web Facing - A Browser Front with a 400 back? Sounds good?

we have 2400 cpw...should be enough to handle development, re-development
and operation of web-facing without bringing the system to its knees...i
have heard from a few sources that without a 2400+ cpw system, Web FAcing
is way too bulky. But with the juice behind it, do we know anyone that has
given this a shot?

-----midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----


To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: pnelson@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 06/07/2005 11:06AM
Subject: Re: Web Facing - A Browser Front with a 400 back? Sounds good?

Rick,

You could deploy iSeries Access for the Web on that machine. I tried it on
my 170 and got sub-minute response time.... :-))

There are software vendors out there who have been pushed by IBM to use
IBM's products to web face their applications. One of my customers there
in New York is in the midst of implementing just such a system. Guess
where the web-facing server resides? If you guessed not on an iSeries, you
get a prize. The performance of the application running on the iSeries
forced the vendor to use a middleware box. The end customer doesn't get
the source, so he can't make mods to his menus, and if the green screen
app changes, he has to wait until the vendor gets around to changing the
GUI side.

If you want all the bells and whistles with a minimal amount of hassle and
investment, you should think seriously about a product like Joe Pluta's,
or a product like Newlook (www.looksoftware.com)
--

Paul Nelson
Arbor Solutions, Inc.
708-670-6978  Cell
pnelson@xxxxxxxxxx





CZE Midrange
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
06/07/2005 09:23 AM
Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion

       To:     midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
       cc:
       Subject:        Web Facing - A Browser Front with a 400 back?
Sounds good?







We have had a growing need to "web face" many of our 400 applications so
remote users can log into programs from the internet but still have the
updates done directly into the 400 database...as a back office.

I have heard IBM Web Facing provides this functionality to handle this
type
of project but I have also heard HATS and 1 or 2 other independent
operations are in competition as well for these services.

Can anyone shed some education on: the pros and cons of Web FAcing vs.
HATS
vs anyone elses product? Known bugs, limitations, stuff like that. One
rumour i heard about Web Facing is there are application problems when you
get "very complex" with your screen design.

Our box has 2400 CPM (520) running on v5.3.

Thank you very much for any time you can lend here.

Rick Rayburn
NYC

--
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.